Ernest, I can't speak for the UK, but I don't believe that is the case in the US. Remember that the smoke/non smoke, under my way of doing things is not optional. You may not do both. You are either a smoking establishment or a non smoking establishment. Assuming your predicate is true, and I don't believe it is, then the smoking ban shouldn't last long, because the majority of your voters will rise up against it and agitate to do away with the ban. Wait .. you mean there is no strong popular movement against??????? Must be a vast left wing conspiracy to hold down all the folks that like to smoke ........ he says with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Despite all the predictions in Ireland, the US cities that have enacted, and the UK, that the people would never stand for this, there has been no mass uprising. I believe the polls show that most folks support this, and the support is growing daily. Remember the things that truly change these habits. For one, when the taxes on cigarettes here in the States went up, there was a corresponding drop in usage. Doing as I have suggested would create another drop as folks that decide against patronizing smoking joints seek other places.

Outright prohibition rarely really works, as the US experiment on the alchohol front has shown. But smart legislation/taxation/litigation can be very effective in in raising price and thus deterring the habit until the amount of smokers is so small that one could do away with the nasty buggers. Done right, it doesn't infringe on personal rights in the same way that bans do.

All the best,

Mick