@Claudette: So 70% of pub-goers were smokers? Perhaps that’s because many non-smokers have traditionally avoided pubs. And it will take a very long time to change that as people aren’t going to alter their behaviour overnight.

@Alan Thrower: unlike you, I’ll assume good faith and suggest we travelled on different trains, or that you are remembering an earlier time when more people smoked. I can clearly remember standing on trains between Kidderminster and Birmingham in the late 80s. And when GNER finally announced smoking on-board their trains was to stop, one prominent figure was quoted in the Telegraph as saying it was a pity as it was the only place he could ever find a seat (sorry, I did look, but can’t find a reference right this minute)

Isn’t it funny that Googling “Enstrom/Kabat report” returns the Forest website as the top result? Could this be that it’s the only report that has ever shown only a statistically insignificant link between passive smoking and disease? All other reports before and since have shown a significant link. Scientific consensus is that there is a link. None of the people posting here is an expert in this field. In fact, you are all completely unqualified to comment as you all have interests in “proving” that smoking is harmless. Smokers seem to believe that there is some sort of grand conspiracy theory, and that the entire medical profession is out to get them. I would suggest that none of you have any experience of academic research. The people publishing these reports are people of great integrity. They set their personal beliefs aside and search for the truth. Their only desire is to prevent people from suffering with terrible diseases. The lot of you need to grow up and stop sticking your head in the sand when it comes to passive smoking. Perhaps then other people could work with you to accommodate you somehow. As things stand, you have no credibility.

As for opinion polls, you can find the results here. If you have a problem with sample sizes, etc., perhaps you can take that up with YouGov. They choose samples representative of the population (yes I’m afraid they don’t just ask people from your little forum – the big wide world does exist outside, you know). I doubt big organisations would bother paying them money if the poll results were meaningless. If the result had been 55% in favour of the ban against 45%, that wouldn’t be significant. But 77% against 20% is a clear indication of public support for the ban.

Still no-one has given the right answer to my question. I think I gave the answer in the original post. Other than the fact it’s a historical anomaly, the reason smokers think they should be able to smoke in all sorts of places is actually because smoking is an addiction. You hate it when you can’t smoke. You get agitated. You can’t enjoy yourself. Freedom of choice isn’t involved once you are hooked. Most of you are drug addicts. And quite honestly, letting smokers comment on this public health policy is letting lunatics run the asylum.

May I correct the aspect of this blog that I found totally incorrect and unfounded, considering I am 12 years older and, quite obviously, a lot wiser than the ill-informed and dangerously prejudiced writer (I’d say, too, that a psychologist could well find some deep-seated problems regarding smoke as a kid that would explain such a ridiculous point of view)?

I also remember catching trains when the smoking carriage accounted for one eighth of the available space … I don’t ever remember being able to crowbar my way into it though as it was always rammed full of passengers while the other 7 carriages were quite visibly free of people and seats were readily available.

Perhaps the blogger should smoke as his memory is cloudy anyway, what extra harm could a cigarette possibly do?

If this is an accurate account of your credentials, for an educated man, your writing lacks intelligence.

“The difference is, people now do have the freedom to choose to visit a smoke-free establishment, which wasn’t available before: there may have been the odd posh, non-smoking restaurant in London, but everywhere else, nothing. It’s not enough to leave it to free market economics as past experience has shown.”

Why do you think that is? Perhaps it’s because 70% of pub goers are smokers and the pubs were catering to the majority of the clientele. After all, landlords are in the business to make a living, it’s called free enterprise-an economic and political doctrine holding that a capitalist economy can regulate itself in a freely competitive market through the relationship of supply and demand with a minimum of governmental intervention and regulation.

“The only research that claimed there’s no link between passive smoking and lung cancer was that sponsored by the tobacco industry.”

Where on God’s earth did you get this from? The organisation that found that there was no link between passive smoking and lung cancer was, much to their dismay, The World Health Organisation. F.Y.I. They do not get funding from the tobacco industry, on the contrary, they receive funding from large pharmaceutical companies who make billions of pounds selling us NRT products which are being marketed by WHO and ASH.

“I know of no peer-reviewed research that claims smelling perfume causes cancer.”

Hey! You finally got one right! However fragrances cause individuals who suffer from Asthma to have an attack, which could be fatal.

“In a YouGov poll in mid-June, 77% of people supported the ban, only 20% opposed it.”

How many people participated in that poll? Was it a 97? 100? 1000? 10,000? Only a poll which included a response from every adult in this country would give you an accurate picture of how people view the ban.

“One thing’s certain: the ban on smoking in public places is a fine example of democracy in action.”

You appear to be confused, the definition of democracy is – state of society characterised by formal equality of rights and privileges.

I do not expect to be able to smoke anywhere and anytime I want. In the same way that on a motorway I can drive at 70 mph but do not expect to do the same down a residential street, anytime, anywhere. However as being a mammal and homo sapien I am a social animal and like to “herd” with my fellow human beings, ideally in an “approved” by your good self in a social establishment. This to me is a pub or a bar. If it is well ventilated and separate, or even a different venue to where you want to go, what is your problem?

BTW we are not pro smoking but merely pro choice. I do not want to inconvenience you.

Interestingly, no-one has answered the important question of why smokers should be able to smoke wherever they are, whatever they are doing, while everyone else does the activities they enjoy at an appropriate time and place – in many cases in the privacy of their own home.

It’s impossible for everyone to be satisfied regarding the laws on smoking. The difference is, people now do have the freedom to choose to visit a smoke-free establishment, which wasn’t available before: there may have been the odd posh, non-smoking restaurant in London, but everywhere else, nothing. It’s not enough to leave it to free market economics as past experience has shown. And it’s now the majority who are catered for.

The only research that claimed there’s no link between passive smoking and lung cancer was that sponsored by the tobacco industry. I know of no peer-reviewed research that claims smelling perfume causes cancer (although drinking it is probably a bad idea) – in fact, mandyv has brought up an interesting point, as if any such research was published, wearing the offending fragrances in public would be banned immediately, and they would most likely be withdrawn from sale. Perhaps the same should be true for cigarettes.

I would like to see some of the posters above go into a restaurant and throw a bucket of water over diners, or shout down someone’s ear. They would be asked to leave immediately, and the police might even be called.

Smoking in public has only been allowed for so long for historical reasons – it’s quite an anomaly. In fact, smoking in general would never be allowed if it was invented today. Saying “smoking is legal” so you should be able to do it anywhere is a very weak argument: are you really saying you’d prefer it to be banned altogether? The world has changed, far fewer people smoke now, the law needed to catch up.

In a YouGov poll in mid-June, 77% of people supported the ban, including 39% of smokers. Only 20% opposed it. If at some point in the future, there is a similar level of support for banning smoking altogether, it will happen; for the moment, without that support, it won’t. One thing’s certain: the ban on smoking in public places is a fine example of democracy in action.

This statement alone highlight what a truly narrow minded person you are. Not liking something and it being illegal should be an ideological gulf, not a short hop. Have to stopped to considered how many aspects of your own life other people find unpleasant and how you would feel if you suddenly found yourself marginalised because of it.

You then go on to say the following;
“No-one would consider making a very loud noise in public”

Have no NEVER been to a concert? Or a nightclub or even half of the pubs in the UK these days – with music so loud you have to shout over it?
All public places where loud noises are found (though some call it music). I tend to avoid these places, but perhaps I should follow your example, since I find it unpleasant it should therefor be illegal.

You then further go on to say;
“or spraying others with water, or emitting any sort of foul smell.”

Both of which are legal. If you’ve ever been to a park and seen kids running around with water pistols you’d know this, or out into the country and smelt the stench of slurry you’d know neither occurance is uncommon.
According to you they’re both unpleasant and therefor should be illegal. God alone knows how many other things you find unpleasant and would ban were you ever to come to power.
I got to bed tonight glad that you’re NOT in charge.

Check out your facts èpassive smoking is nothing more than a mere irritant.

Ventilation and choice should have been the way forward, not lies and scare-mongering. There are many non-smokers, who do not belive this ban is right.

You may not care that you have also ruined many peoples social life, for smoking something that is legal.
The elderly smokers did not get a choice or voice. Just the like of you, who want to control others.
It was never about health. I understand many do not like the smell, but the smell of the obnoxious antis is far worse to many also.
I have a major problem with those who wear, after shave, perfumes and deoderants, not all of them I have to say. I have had meals ruined because of those carcinogen fumes wafting over.
I would not want them banned though.
You may not care that the elderly will be cast out into the cold, for a smell you do not like.
You do not care that buisness will lose money, because it is not yours to lose, you will not compensate them.
You now have your smokefree everything, yet you still do not stop. Why do you think your rights are more important than others. Signs could have also been put up for “this is a smoking establishment” then YOU need not enter. No you want control. But you will not control all of the people.
You can have your old people homes, I hope to God I do not make it into one.
Then you will get a taste at what loneliness is all about. I just hope your visitors can tolerant the smell of some of them, to bother visiting you.