It's not about indoctrination. It's not about your right to take risks. It's about my right not to have you impose risks on me. STOP BLOWING SMOKE IN MY FACE, GODDAMN IT!

Well said. The government can warn us of the dangers, but ultimately it is our choice whether to smoke. We elect governments to do our bidding, not run our lives.

The only change needed is to ensure smokers wear their own health cost. In fact, that should apply to everyone. There are plenty of health costs arising from personal choices that others would not make.

"The decision to smoke is an individual choice a third party can't make on our behalf."

The irony here is that the addictive nature of the products and the marketing techniques of the companies that sell them undermine the notion of individual choice that is held as sacred. The government advertisements and regulation are just an attempt to counter these other influences and provide the opportunity for a balanced and informed choice.

That's all very well but what about a non-smoker's rights?

Do we go back to the good ol' days when you had to endure smoke in buses, planes and restaurants. It is just lack of courtesy and manners. Why should other people have to endure the second hand smoke and discomfort of another's addiction.

Tobacco companies sell to the poorest of countries where there is no regulation regarding marketing and health (labelling/filters). Countries like Nepal faced huge problems with the high take-up of the habit, and have in the last few years drafted their own legislation to combat the problem including no-smoking areas.

Butt out indeed from smoking within my personal space.

Brilliant Article!

grputland,

Why don't we just ban blowing smoke in people's faces instead. Happy? Thought not. You're a self righteous indignation junkie. You'd be the most upset if they banned smoking. You'd have to go and yell at kids for climbing trees instead.

DavidL,

'The only change needed is to ensure smokers wear their own health cost. '

No deal. Slippery slope. Every decision can be in some way harmful or recalcitrant. Where does it stop? I'm not even a bleeding heart but the end game is in that scenario will always be that for the poor and mentally ill, it's all their fault or the fault of their parents so any vice or coping mechanism is ultimately their own fault too. It would make it prohibitively expensive to have any emotional issues.

Someone who has a stressful job and neglects to smoke to calm down should pay for their heart surgery.

Anyway, non smokers DO get lung cancer, so how you gonna prove it mate!

pelican,

'Why should other people have to endure the second hand smoke and discomfort of another's addiction. '

How far you going to take that. There is no right not to be annoyed in public. There are plenty of people lining up to ban dogs and children you know, why not just give them a thin edge of the wedge they need.

So, garlic bans and curry bans? Compulsory deodorant?

I've never smoked but I feel for the pariahs of this anal society. It's just a bit of bloody smoke! Get over it people. Do you all carry around hand sanitising cream? I bet you do.

I actually miss the days when I used to pick my clothes off the floor of some random girls bedroom to smell the stench of stale cigarette smoke. Ah, the smell of the night before.

Now pubs are so free of haze it's impossible to have that atmosphere any more. There should be pubs that you can go to where all the staff smoke and smoking is allowed.

Houellebecq: I'll be satisfied when the law treats smoking like sex: the right to do it exists only between consenting adults in private.

The law acknowledges that what you do in your bedroom is your business, but that I shouldn't have to see it when I walk down the street. (I offer no opinion as to whether it would be a pretty sight.)

Smoking should be treated likewise -- the more so because I not only see it but also inhale it.