There has never been any scientific evidence - or even logical supposition - that sitting in a well-ventilated pub with smokers was going to be harmful to anyone (except the smoker). Smoking bans were about the denormalisation of smoking and didn't it succeed. Almost overnight, we were demonised. The mere whiff of a cigarette in the street became sufficient justification for a total stranger to accost an innocent passer-by and accuse them of deliberately and selfishly causing them harm.
It became politically correct to bully strangers for their own life choices, even when pursuing them perfectly legally - I mean, if the government says sitting in a smoky pub is dangerous, then being able to smell it anywhere MUST be harmful, mustn't it?
And if you dare give them the scientific facts, they throw the "what about Roy Castle, then?" - as though one, well respected, celebrity who happened to believe his cancer was caused by smoky clubs (many decades prior to his illness) was scientific PROOF of the passive smoking risk.
In what reality is it reasonable argument to take the anecdotal evidence of one case to be proof of anything? - I'll bet we've all got more anecdotal evidence of the contrary being the case, where people have got diseases commonly linked to smoking and have no history of significant exposure to smoke. Cancer doesn't discriminate - some people get it, some don't. The fact that smokers have a higher chance of getting certain types doesn't mean that you have to (or can) find a link to smoking in all cases of such cancers
I once just looked on the Mail with scorn, now I despise it for its lies
The article will be read and believed by a multitude of people all too ready to soak this shite up like a sponge - virtually none of them will ever read the rebuttal.
