I think what a person puts into their own body is their own choice or atleast it should be. I myself don't smoke but I have done in the past. So long as a persons actions don't harm others either directly or indirectly then I can see no reason for Government interference. How a person chooses to live their life should not be dictated by Governments except where absolutely necessary in the interests of protecting citizens.

Having said that I am personally in two minds about tobacco. On the one hand it is only harmful to the smokers in open area's. Similarly in pubs and cafes a way of ensuring staff and patrons choose to inhale secondary smoke seems a realistic answer.

Yet on the other hand tobacco is one of the most addictive drugs known. People have a very hard time quitting once they decide to and seeing others smoking is a trigger for craving. So is seeing promotion signs and stacks of cigarettes at every newsagency etc. I wouldn't be too bothered if Tobacco was completely banned. It would certainly reduce the hospital beds used to treat aging smokers.

Marijuana however should be completely legalised. From what I've learned it actually improves more than harms peoples health.

Jolanda is right.
A smoking ban on outdoor areas doesn't make sense at all. If a person standing next to me outdoors is smoking and the wind happens to blow my way, all I have to do is move a little.

The plan (not sure if these were actually serious plans) to ban smoking in outdoor areas such as streets, parks and beaches is a silly one.
I realise that the cigarette butts thrown on the beach is a real concern, but so is all the rest of the litter left behind on beaches. Should eating/drinking in parks and on beaches therefore also be banned? People really need to be educated to pick up behind them, whereas it's on beaches, in parks or in the street, whereas it's cigarette butts or other litter.

If there were smoke rooms/outdoor area's at workplaces or free-smoking café's people wouldn't put butts out in the street.
Parks and beaches should have more bins and more signs to remind people to use them.

I've always wondered what will become of the more rabid anti-smoking crusaders after the social war is over and they declare victory.

Surely that won't be enough for them, once they've had a taste of victory.

Who or what will be in their sites next? Those with poor fashion sense? Self-abusers? Free-thinkers? Repeat overdue library book offenders?

There are rights, manners and responsibilities in society and if everybody plays their part, all should be OK. Once one group assumes the right to decide on behalf of another group is generally where trouble starts. Tolerance really is a two-way street.

Best wishes and compliments of the season to all OLO contributers - smokers and non-smokers alike.

WayneSmith: I'm completely with you on marijuana (I'm sure my view on that was already pretty obvious), but let's not make our case based on false claims that marijuana improves health. Although to be fair, it has been used as traditional medicine, most noticeably in Chinese medicine, for longer than you can imagine (get this: it's used to treat constipation AND diarrea!).

The case for the legalisation of weed is an easy one. The indisputeable fact is that it is less dangerous in every way, short term and long term, than alcohol. You can quibble on the details of that forever, but thats the fact of the matter. You can even argue there's much less pot *related* dangers when compared to alcohol, such as violence, car accidents, etc.

I could go on but I'm getting off track.

In relation to the topic, I must say I'm surprised that no one has disagreed yet. If we all agree, whats with this stupid new law? Help me out here, it just doesnt make any sense....

Spendocrat,
I assume that the ones who disagree are staying away as they have no reasonable arguments to back up their opinion.
I hadn't ready Wayne's comment before I posted my last comment.

Wayne,
you make a good point about the staff inhaling smoke. This might have played a big role in the banning of tobacco in public places in the first place (staff can sue employers).
The only answer I can think of to this problem is for the staff to be smokers or to accept (and sign for) the risk they are exposed to. I'm really a proponent for filter systems that will reduce the risks.

As I've said, I'm also a proponent for smoke rooms/area's in workplaces.
Now these people stand in the street, having their smoko, in view of everyone including ex-smokers (or people trying to quit), impressionable teenagers and children. This would all be hidden if there were smoking rooms.
Under 18's can't enter pubs anyway so they won't be exposed to smoking 'rolemodels', as opposed to seeing these smokers in the street.

I think that soft drugs should be legalised as well- it makes it safer to use because it's easier to control something that is legalised; then you can have safety standards, instructions, control, recommended dosages, etc.

Sorry Wayne.

The British Medical Journal respectfully disagrees with your statement "Marijuana ... actually improves more than harms peoples health."

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7396/942#B4

There are dozens of supporting articles if you have the patience to read them.

To pretend that smoking dope is somehow safe is simply wrong. It carries with it not only a greater bronchial impact - according to a study at UCLA "lung damage caused by four marijuana cigarettes were equal to the damage caused by 112 tobacco cigarettes" - but also an increased predilection to psychosis - "Psychotic symptoms more likely with cannabis" New Scientist Dec 2004.

There has been enough propaganda around for smokers to assess for themselves the risks they are taking.

Clearly the same level of understanding does not exist on the dangers of marijuana.

Or perhaps one of the symptoms of smoking dope is self-delusion?