Quote:
Well, I'm pretty anti-smoking, even got my wife to give up after years of nagging (okay, I had to finally resort to getting her pregnant, but it worked )

Awesome strategy! Great work!

Quote:
but I reckon this isn't going to fly for a number of reasons, and I'm glad.

a) Why should the Scottish Parliament have the right to do this? Currently I can choose not to go into a smoky bar - and generally I do stick to the better ventilated ones (unless I am very drunk in which case I don't care) so a law to do this seems pointless.

One big hook anti-indoor-smoking initiatives hang their hat on is that staff/employees in workplaces, restaurants, don't have that choice and that the negative effect for them is pretty much beyond dispute. You can say that they should get another job, but that isn't realistic.

Quote:
b) If they do want to do this, why not start easy rather than go for the kill at once (as this may well be too much) - I mean bringing in something like a requirement for a smoking licence may well persuade some bars to go non-smoking just as it's easier.

Not sure about why the "all-at-once", but if the science is with you I am guessing you can have more success taking a strong all-at-once stance. If the playing field is leveled, as with California's all-at-once law, then individual tavern owners find it harder to feel disadvantaged, although a recent county initiative here in WA was overturned recently because bar owners complained that all their smoking customers would flee to nearby (unregulated) Indian casinos to drink and smoke.

Quote:
c) Like I said, I hate smoking - but it is a good source of revenue. Allow it, tax it heavily, legalise cannabis and tax it too...etc all good money to go into the coffers (hopefully instead of my taxes going in there:-) - okay this one is a personal preference on the government to tax things I am not interested in

Smoking is a lousy source of revenue. I haven't looked at in a while, but it was the case that the French government did (and maybe still does) have a state monopoly on tobacco. Well, for every franc they made on tobacco, they spent *nine* francs on tobacco-releated disease care. While I would be careful about the revenue angle, I wouldn't argue against "allow it, tax in" as you suggest. Just make sure the sin taxes pay for more nurses.

While I am probably one of the most ardent anti-smoking people I know (having watched a lot of smokers die slow, nasty deaths), I actually think that some initiatives have gone too far -- like someplace (in Oregon?) that was going to ban smoking in public parks -- but not California's. I would never imagine a prohibition against tobacco, for the same reason that I think the War on Drugs (tm) is wrong-headed and counter-productive.


Edited by jimhogan (11/11/2004 14:10)
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.