I'm a little disappointed in Bill's response. I don't know Ernest well enough, but he misses the distinction as well. First off, no public smoking outdoors. No one should be subjected to cig smoke involuntarily. Second off, Bill's argument about how no one chose the years before this went into effect misses the key point. Because the owners weren't forced to choose one or the other. The lazy smokers won't choose at all. Bill's answer smacks of a paternalistic attitude that he knows no one would follow the rules. My way forces a decision. In Bill's example the pubs didn't have to choose. Hence, they didn't. It's one or the other, no middle. And no one would be forced to live with the other unless they chose to. Under no cirmcumstances do I want your filty, stinking smoke. I don't want to walk through it, or be around it. You have no right to contaminate and injure my lungs and cvs. And I don't have an absolute right to go into any business I want. As long as the introduction of smoke to me is involuntary, I object. But if that restaraunt announces it is strictly a smoking place, I won't be in it.

BTW Ernest, public business is still private property. You don't have the same rights there. You don't have the right to go in, if the owner chooses not to let you in. Signage that indicates that owners reserve the right to refuse service abound.

All the best,

Mick