Which sides arguments has been put best?

Xterminator

Hi,

leaving aside the rights and wrongs and opinions, i think that based on first posts, the 'pro smoking' lobby are not doing as well.

I felt that Irish1 and Hembane didnt ge their point accros logically, whereas i felt that all of the ''pro status-quo' debators were very clear and logical in their approaches.

anyone agree or disagree

X

jor el

I think Fitz is making some good points for the no-compromise camp and generally their side seems to have an edge.
The pro arguement seems to a bit flimsey, hinging on air conditioning and allowing family run pub owners to risk the health of their family just so a few auld boys can smoke at the bar. henbane made the point that people are loosing thier jobs because of this ban, I'd like to know where. I was out last weekend and on both Saturday and Sunday night my local was packed to the front door, so much so that my brother couldn't even get outside for a cigarette and so didn't bother smoking. I know it was a bank holiday weekend and this will always get a good crowd out, but if the smokers can put up with it then, surely they can on any other night too.

Some of both sides arguement is getting silly, there's a bit of tit-for-tat going on and some strange analogies have been made, but I still think the no-comp side are faring better.