Any "compromise" still affects the health of people in those venues or affects the business of venues that cannot go non-smoking.
The example of a small village has already been given: if you had a pub and a private-members club as the only facilities in a village and one is allowed to keep smoking then all the smokers will go there and negatively affect the business of the other. Is that fair ? No. Every example you can come up with there is a counter-example to how it does not work in a slightly different situation.
As I said before, you cannot please everyone. No one solution will fit all requirements. Life isn't fair. The "middle ground" proposal would have tried to cater for everyone and it would have caused more problems than it solved.
The bottom line is that this is a health issue, for workers, for the public, for customers. The only reasonable way to solve this issue is to ban smoking in all those places. Full stop. If you disagree, then I suggest you write to your MP because whining to me will get you precisely nowhere.
no subject
The example of a small village has already been given: if you had a pub and a private-members club as the only facilities in a village and one is allowed to keep smoking then all the smokers will go there and negatively affect the business of the other. Is that fair ? No. Every example you can come up with there is a counter-example to how it does not work in a slightly different situation.
As I said before, you cannot please everyone. No one solution will fit all requirements. Life isn't fair. The "middle ground" proposal would have tried to cater for everyone and it would have caused more problems than it solved.
The bottom line is that this is a health issue, for workers, for the public, for customers. The only reasonable way to solve this issue is to ban smoking in all those places. Full stop. If you disagree, then I suggest you write to your MP because whining to me will get you precisely nowhere.