Inneresting article by Peter Oborne in the Telegraph.
I don't smoke myself but I don't see why smoking couldn't be allowed to continue in separate well ventilated rooms. Ostensibly the ban was to safeguard people who work in pubs, so they claimed. Kind of back fired a bit really considering how many have lost their jobs through pub closures.
Surely there must be a middle ground somewhere but of course there will be no compromise whenever the interfering tentacles of the nanny state are involved. Besides, a recent report by the American Cancer Institute concluded that second hand smoke does not cause cancer. Make of that what you will but there's a good article on that by James Delingpole here.
I don't smoke myself but I don't see why smoking couldn't be allowed to continue in separate well ventilated rooms. Ostensibly the ban was to safeguard people who work in pubs, so they claimed. Kind of back fired a bit really considering how many have lost their jobs through pub closures.
Surely there must be a middle ground somewhere but of course there will be no compromise whenever the interfering tentacles of the nanny state are involved. Besides, a recent report by the American Cancer Institute concluded that second hand smoke does not cause cancer. Make of that what you will but there's a good article on that by James Delingpole here.
Comment