No, definitely not. I don't even smoke cigarettes. No, there should be no law that bans smoking anywhere. Horrible idea. The fact that this is already in place in restaurants in many places is saddening to me.

No, Its banned in England, In restaurants, pubs and inside in all public places, thats more than enough, banning it outside is going way to far.

No I do not believe so , it smacks very strongly at Big Brother. Personally I think it is infringing on a persons rights. I feel there should be places for Non smokers AND places for smokers. I am a NON Smoker, I do not feel that gives me the right to force others not to smoke.

Outside AS WELL???!!! Gimme a break! At least leave some harmless places where we smokers can have a fag!

Yes i can go with being banned in restaurants and pubs, but not outside as well surely! what more fag smoke than the emissions from and exhaust pipe in a car or bus or bloody well lorry!! shit sake next we will be getting told what time we can and cant smoke!! hells bells ITS ALL GONE TOO FAR....

Well, unlike smokers, though i know its addictive, i care about my health. I don't want to die of lung cancer, because of someone elses unhealthy choices. Absolutely in restaurants, smoking should be banned. But in a public place outside, isn't a big deal, because you may just walk away if you don't enjoy smelling it or being around it. But sitting down makes it difficult to get away from it, if you're having your dinner.

No it shouldn't, as the wish to do so is indicative of one of the nastier sides of human nature. Currently some local councils in the UK are looking at the idea of banning smoking in public parks, etc. The idea is camouflaged by the 'we just want what's best for you and everyone else' line, but really it is no different than any other kind of discrimination. Where it differs from the normally more visible racism, sexism, ageism, etc, is that it has 'scientific' sanction. This usually means that a bunch of half-wit officials have got round a table, had a PowerPoint presentation from a representative of a pressure group with 10% science and 90% inuendo, and debated 'who can we point the finger at next'. There is reason behind their actions. If a council launches a purge (on smokers, or dog walkers or you take your pick), people might forget their bins haven't been emptied for a fortnight, the roads are a mess and their Council Tax is double what it was only a few years ago for half the services, and thus the officials are off the hook for a while. Civil liberty infringment it may be, but that has never bothered politicians before, so why should it now? I wonder if George Orwell would have been gratified to know he got so much right? We all know smoking is bad for you, but the UK government makes over £7 billion a year from the sale of cigarettes and tobacco (9.? billion less about 2 billion to treat smoking related illnesses on the NHS). Looking for groups to tread on 'with legitimacy' in society is the new political game, and has been for some time. In the UK it was the miners 25 years ago, then the Civil Service, then smokers, drivers, dog owners, drinkers, 4x4 users, etc. What matters to the accusers is an ability to deflect attention away from themselves and on to others by using cherry-picked 'science'. Not far from what was being done under National Socialism in Germany. The fact it gives people who would have been at home in Germany 1933 - 1945 an opportunity to finger-point, patronise and bully is just another part of the package. Sorry for the rant, but this sort of nonsensical, bullying infringement backed by 'science' is becoming more and more popular over here, and I hate it.

Sure - and we should set up "re-education" camps to "cure" smokers of their stupid pastime. Those who can be salvaged will be returned to society - those who cannot be "redeemed" must be eliminated for the common good of humanity. So let's build us some showers and ovens people! The FINAL SOLUTION to the SMOKING SCOURAGE must be set to motion! Sig Heil! Sig Heil! Good Greif! Enough with the anti smoking hysteria allready!

i think it should be banned in public places because i causes more than 1000 deaths of lung cancers.second hand smoke affects pregnate women,childer and elderly people more because they are more vonrable.Smoking is also settind bad examples fro teens and young adults because is bacilally shows that is is okay to smoke. Pros Cons Scientists agree that smoking is dangerous. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer, strokes and heart disease. Smoking does not just harm the smoker – it also harms people nearby, who breathe in the smoke (this is called “passive smoking”). Smokers choose to smoke, but people nearby do not choose to smoke passively. People should only be exposed to harm if they understand the risks and choose to accept them. A complete ban on smoking in public is needed to protect people from passive smoking. Society accepts that adults can decide to harm themselves to some extent, so long as they do not harm others. This is why the proposition is not arguing that people should be banned from smoking in private. Passive smokers do choose to breathe in other people’s smoke. If they do not want to smoke passively, they do not need to go to places where smoking is allowed. There is therefore no reason to ban smoking in public. The opposition is wrong to say that people choose to smoke passively. In many places, there are no non-smoking bars or restaurants. Unless people refuse to go out with friends, they cannot avoid passive smoking. People who work in smoky workplaces (e.g. bars) often do not freely choose this sometimes no other jobs are available. In most countries, safety standards do not allow workers to be exposed to unnecessary danger, even if they agree. Workers should not be exposed to other people’s smoke, since they may not have made a free choice to do so. If enough people want to go to non-smoking bars, companies will set up non-smoking bars. If there are no non-smoking bars, this suggests that very few people want them. Some people are quite happy to work in smoky places. In any case, workers should be allowed to choose to work in dangerous conditions. This is accepted for jobs like mining, fishing and the armed forces. Individuals decide that they are better doing this work than not having a job at all. A complete ban is not necessary to protect workers anyway – ventilation fans can remove most smoke. A ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up. If smoking was banned in public places, it would no longer be a social activity. Instead, smokers would have to leave their friends inside and go outside to smoke. This would be particularly unpleasant when it is cold/wet. One third of smokers in Scotland said the ban was helping them to cut down. If smoking was a less social activity, fewer people would start smoking. In many countries, governments pay all or some of the cost of treating smoking-related diseases. This means that governments should have a right to discourage smoking. It is legal to smoke tobacco, so governments have no right to try to make people stop. It is therefore wrong to argue that a ban on public smoking should be introduced to encourage people to give up. Smokers fund their own healthcare through the high taxes they pay on tobacco. In any case, heavy smokers are unlikely to give up since they are addicted to nicotine. People will not smoke more at home. Smokers need to maintain a certain level of nicotine in their blood to remain content. A ban on smoking in public would force them to smoke less while at work. Over time, this would lower the level of nicotine they need to feel content. This would reduce how often they need to smoke. They would therefore smoke less at home, as well as less at work. Banning smoking in public will encourage people to smoke more at home. This will harm other people in their house, particularly children. This is important, since children are not old enough to choose freely to smoke passively. Also, people smoking at home may drink more alcohol than they would if they went to a bar. This is because they can buy it more cheaply at a supermarket or off-licence. Drinking more alcohol may lead to other health problems. It is more important to protect people’s health than to protect businesses. Pubs and clubs should adapt, for example by trying to earn more money from selling food. After a ban was introduced in New South Wales (Australia), only 9% of restaurants reported a drop in trade. A ban on smoking in public places would drive many bars, pubs and clubs out of business. Smokers would not go to these places. These businesses would also earn less money from selling tobacco. In many places, pubs and Working Men’s Clubs are important social places for communities. They also provide jobs for people with few skills in places with little other work. It is therefore important that they survive. There have been few problems with bans where they have been introduced. Heavy fines put off companies from allowing people to smoke. A survey for the Scottish Executive found that 99.4% of premises were observing the ban three months after it was introduced. It would be impossible to police this ban in many public places. Small workplaces will often ignore the ban and are unlikely to be caught. Staff who do not smoke are unlikely to report smokers, in case their colleagues work out who told the authorities.