I tend to take Pericles point here although I am pleased that there have been changes to smoking rules in regard to enclosed spaces like restaurants and aeroplanes etc.

The right to smoke stands next to the right of others to say, enjoy a meal without having to tolerate a smoker nearby. Freedom is sometimes a two-edged sword.

I don't buy the costs to the community aspect. If judged on that basis all manner of slightly dangerous pursuits and habits would be banned. Humans are not perfect, they sometimes drink, smoke, over-eat and undertake dangerous sports. That is just part of life and as such there has to be room for that from the idea that communities work for us. It is not always a cost equation.

That said tobacco companies annoy me no end. That they got away with lying to the public for years about health consequences and interfering in the government policies of others..... but I digress

Spot on, pelican.

>>I don't buy the costs to the community aspect. If judged on that basis all manner of slightly dangerous pursuits and habits would be banned.<<

I feel exactly the same way about McDonalds. We read reams of evidence that the kind of food that they serve in their restaurants is damaging to our health. Yet I still believe they have a right to peddle their fat-soaked burgers to willing purchasers...

http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/getnutrition/nutritionfacts.pdf

Tobacco products are labelled, dramatically, with the potential consequences of their use. But we should accept that people will willingly ignore the potential for harm in the same manner as folk will happily lunch on the 77 grams of fat (113% of their RDI) in their Big Mac 'n' fries 'n' shake, in the full and complete knowledge of what they are doing.

Totalitarianism comes in many guises, including in the shape of little, grey people who firmly believe that what they are doing "is for your own good", and expect us to be grateful.

Pericles, your point is fine except that you expect others to pay the
costs of the smokers' medical treatment.
I have seen the treatment that has been going on for years.
He never got lung cancer but his other lung problems make him an invalid.
He cannot even get leaves out of their pool let alone mow the lawn.
Even the three steps at his front door are an obstacle to him.
He stopped smoking years and years ago but too late.
He is 15 years younger than me but looks and moves like he is 20 years older than me.

OUG, well I can even smell it on his emails !

Welcome to planet bullsh!t...a lot of that getting around now days:)..Its still the same rules.."survival of the fittest"..just because money is the root of all evil, commonsence should be worth to you, a little more.

Its your life...longer or shorter...its your choice.

Planet3

Perhaps we should ban driving cars. The costs to the health system are enormous.

Yes I am being sarcastic.

There is a line somewhere between where rights are conferred by society that meet the fairness test. Fair for the individual and fair for others whom may be affected adversely by a particular behaviour, ie. where those rights might impinge on others.

Many will disagree where to place such a line. I prefer to draw it with minimal interference, and only to differentiate where there might be obvious detriments to the freedoms of others.

OUG Face it my friend it is my view that on this subject you are talking rubbish.
It is my right to have that view as you have every right to continue putting the minority one.
No doubt, not a mili gram, exists in my mind smoking kills.
And via our health system unfairly costs the majority.
Not a nanny state thing, but if people continue to smoke, with the evidence we now have make them not us pay for associated health costs