> All the people who oppose the ban, but also insist that passive smoking is totally harmless.

Are there really that many people who say that? The majority of such comments I've heard have said that yes, there seems to be a danger, but the studies trotted out are huge, steaming piles of bullshit. Unlike, say, the link between diesel particulates and cancer, or between vehicle pollution and childhood asthma...

> Are there really that many people who say that?

Oh yes. Smoking can't be mentioned on Samizdata without hordes of them popping up in the comments.

Actually, your comment that the quality of a night out will improve is not actually true. It is likely to improve for the majority of non-smokers IMHO and get worse for people who do smoke. It may also get worse for some friends of people who do smoke but refuse to frequent their old haunts because of the ban (though more nights in with friends will likely make up for this).

You mean it's a matter of opinion and I was speaking from my own point of view? My God; I never realised. Thank God you're here.

No need to be like that. You were telling people to sit down and shut up if they could provide no evidence for their opinions on passive smoking (perfectly fair and you have the right to do so). Because many have not provided any evidence it is simply their opinion and you have tried to correct that opnion with your declaration.

I come here and indicate that one of your opinions is not a simple truth (you provide the space for me to do this) and your reaction seems odd.

If I remember I will try to refrain from further commentary here, which is a shame because I like your blog.

If you don't like sarcasm but do like my blog, you're weird, frankly.

Always sad to have to explain these things, but... any statement about the quality of a night out is so overwhelmingly obviously subjective that any statement about whether it's "true" is overwhelmingly obviously meaningless. Next you'll be telling me that my statement that I had a good birthday this year is not true. I mean, did you really think that it hadn't occurred to me that, for many smokers, a smoking ban might be bad? You thought I might have missed that? And then you complain about my reaction. Honestly, some people.


> Because many have not provided any evidence it is simply their opinion and you have tried to correct that opnion with your declaration.

No, that's totally wrong. When making a scientific claim, not providing any evidence is called "making up total bollocks". I haven't merely made a declaration; I have pointed out that, for their claim to be true, according to our understanding of the nature of physical reality, one of two other things must also be true, neither of which they ever assert, and neither of which most of them believe. My post was clearly aimed at those people (of whom there are many) who say that, because no scientific study has yet proven the danger of passive smoking, to say that passive smoking is dangerous is pseudo-scientific. This claim isn't merely an opinion; it's a scientific claim, and it's wrong, being of the same type as claiming that we need to do separate studies to establish whether being hit in the head with a hammer is dangerous both to people who own the hammer and people who don't.

>>..being hit in the head with a hammer is dangerous both to people who own the hammer and people who don't.

The real question there is - who is more likely to use the hammer in the context of mutual-assured hammering? Obviously the person without a hammer is more likely to be hammered than the person with a hammer as there is a deterrent. Unfortunately this means that there is likely to be a proliferation of entities developing hammer technology and those with hammers must do everything in their power to prevent this even if it is perfectly legal to own a hammer that you have no intention of hitting anyone with.

Surely the person without the hammer is more likely to be hammered as they don't have a hammer with which to hammer the person who does possess a hammer. I'm afraid the notion of deterrence being the cause of the non-hammer owning person not doing any hammering is thus a redundant concept.

"...even if it is perfectly legal to own a hammer..."

Ha!

For now anyway.

Give them time, and a few hammer-murders...