I was going to blog about that, but I'm in deadline hell atm.... so quickly and incoherently:

It's fairly obviously been taken out of context - they're responding to the arguments by the anti-smoking lobby, and the "savings" argument is used again and again to justify a ban on cigs on the grounds that smoking related diseases costs the NHS a fortune. However, the debate tends to disappear when the figures are trotted out (£1.5bn uk-wide on smoking-related health costs; £9.5bn uk-wide on tax from smoking products; those are govt. figures per year) and of course, the fact that us smokers do the rest of you a favour by popping our clogs at a ridiculously early age.

I was amused by the quote in the same article that said people had the right to live as long and as healthily as they wanted to; presumably the right to live a life as short and as unhealthy as you want isn't quite so acceptable ;-)

I know we've talked about this before but the thing that bugs me about all of this is that it's never been a debate, it's two opposing sides who've no intention of listening to anybody else, shouting at one another. Gah.

Yeah, I noticed that quote. "You're all free to do whatever you want, which is why we must ban some of your preferred activities." Mmm.

Interestingly, there's some speculation that the ban will encourage smokers to entertain at home (or just drink at home); apparently there's anecdotal evidence that smokers in ban countries stay in more and smoke themselves silly. The law of unintended consequences strikes again: implementing a ban to protect adults who have a choice whether or not to visit pubs could mean increased tobacco exposure for the smokers' kids.

Whether that actually happens or not I dunno; the evidence is as sound as the claim I heard from some arse on the radio saying that a million jillion scots die every second from second-hand smoke, and that smoking's the cause even if there's a sodding great axe sticking out of their head ;-) But the point is, I guess, that this is a serious issue and deserves serious thought. The SLTA has been pretty fair IMO - they've suggested meeting the Executive halfway and implementing the "english ban", which seems fair enough to me.

Government sometimes takes a role in ensuring that a market is sufficiently competitive. So how about quotas for non-smoking pubs per town? If there are as many non-smoking pubs as smoking ones, you leave the market to do what it will. If there aren't enough, you give preferential licensing and tax breaks to anyone who wants to set one up. What would be wrong with that?

Is that not something that has been highlighted in Australia - that there is less of a binge-drinking/pub culture but possibly as a result there is an enormous amount of alcoholism at home. I may have totally made that up.

You're allowed to make stuff up around here. I do.

I do think I remember hearing that that's started to happen in Ireland, though. And sources don't get much more reliable than that.

HA! I actually suggested that to your lovely wife a while ago. So it was ME who made it up.

Sounds very plausible though, doesn't it. As a non-smoker (always have been, always will be) I actually don't mind smoking in pubs - I mean, I don't go in there for the sake of my health, do I? What I DO worry about is that some smokers will leave their drinks whilst they nip out for a fag, and leave themselves open to having their drinks spiked. And where are they supposed to go anyway? Hang about just outside the pub door? That's a great move in Glasgow. Ooh, actually, I can see a new range of clothing coming out especially for Weegies... 'Smoke -a-Mac'. A raincoat with an especially big hood so that your fags and your nice outfit don't get wet! ( And that's MY idea, before anyone nicks it)

Off to phone my mate the patent lawyer....
L

Hey, I just remembered: in Glasgow, it's illegal to drink outdoors. So this law will mean that you can smoke in public (outside) and you can drink in public (in pubs) but anyone who wants to do both at once will have to stay at home. Weird.