But, in context, what I was getting at (albeit rather rudely) is that "help" could be a little less one-sided. Better ventilation -- and there is some pretty powerful technology available for filtering and re-cycling indoor air --, and less dangerous cigs would also "help", but the money goes on the banning (which does push smokers out to the streets), and on the programs for those who wish to quit. That leaves a lot of people out in the cold.
Whoops, I missed your post while I was posting the last comment.
Yes, I agree about the ventilation stuff. Personally I'd rather they had a 'smoking lounge' or similar area rather than forcing smokers onto the street.
Maybe we need to invent something like the "cone of silence" that used to descend over agent Smart in "Get Smart". It could suck away the smoke. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />
I'm not sure about the money issue - the government here certainly spends a lot of money on Quit programs and health awareness advertising. I know it does cost administrative money to frame the legislation that deals with public smoking, but I couldn't say how they compare. They certainly do seem to be genuinely trying to consider a range of options other than just bans.
I would like to see more work done on providing properly ventilated areas too. I'd even support government subsidising the costs to the providers. But, as the post from Hakea above says, the legal issues regarding health and safety of both staff and patrons seem to complicate the issue. I don't think that governments want to appear to be supporting smoking even obliquely. A pity, as it would seem both fair and helpful to take that tack. There's never a single strategy that will solve these things alone.
