The question is, are there more people attending (betting) WITH
a smoking ban or WITHOUT? Personally, I'm more likely to attend
if I don't come out smelling like a double corona. But there must
be a lot (probably more of us) who don't go at all if they can't
smoke (conveniently, that is).
How the government can restrict the use of a legal product is
beyond me. It's a most hypocritical situation where we can subsidize
the growing of the crop and give tax breaks to the manufacturers,
while, at the same time, sneering at the users, hitting them with
'sin taxes' and restricting them with unconstitutional laws. IMHO,
the government has no right to restrict legal activities on private
property (at a restaurant or fronton, for example). It's a ridiculous
situation which not only shows that money talks (subsidies), but
that government caves to whiners (bans).
I agree that smoking is dangerous, and unpleasant to some (including
me), but I have to stand on the side of the tobacco industry on
this one. Until tobacco is illegal (fat chance!), the government
needs to stand aside.
