In article > "Andy Pandy" > writes:
>"Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message
...
>> In article > "Andy Pandy"
> writes:
>> >What is your prediction about what will happen to tobacco use rates if/when they
>ban
>> >smoking in pubs?
>> >
>> >What has the effect been of the *increasing* prohibition on smoking we've seen
>over
>> >the last 20 years or so?
>>
>> Banning smoking in pubs isn't the same thing as prohibition.

>Er, yes it is. Have a look in the dictionary.
>
>Prohibition of smoking in pubs, just like prohibition of smoking on trains, in the
>workplace etc. *is* prohibition. .

Nit-picking.

In the context of drugs, normally "prohibition" means making the drug
contraband and illegal to possess.

Local prohibitions, such as in pubs, restaurants, public area, are simply
quite sensible alternatives to total prohibition.

Should I be able to bring in a burning stick of incense into a pub and set it
down next to me because I like the smell?

>Have you never seen "smoking prohibited" signs? It does *not* mean possession is
>illegal.

Right, that's a local prohibition, not the same thing as making it totally
contraband.

There's a BIG difference.

>> If simply possessing tobacco landed you in jail, THAT would be prohibition.

>That would be total prohibition. There is currently prohibition of smoking in certain
>places, like pubic transport etc, and which will probably be extended to pubs.

And that's as it should be. You should not force other people to enjoy your
habit.

-Pete Zakel
)

"The new Congressmen say they're going to turn the government around. I
hope I don't get run over again."