I’m 20. I smoke. I get asked for ID to see 15 rated movies.

I’m actually kind of offended by what you’re saying. Not your opinions, but they way you are trying to enforce them on us and make us believe WE are evil. I’m all for peoples opinions except when that opinion is that I’m something I’m not, or not something that I am. It’s not for you to decide I’m evil for smoking. Fascism is evil, and claiming I’m evil for something I do that you don’t agree with is technically fascism.

Now see this; I go to a music college. Out of a class of 20, 18 of us smoke. The 2 that do not smoke have no problem with smoking. Now- the college is held at a music studio. The owners and employees also smoke. Since a very large number of musicians (in my area) smoke, why must we all stand outside in a wind tunnel (caused by a big wall) and in the rain to smoke, when there is a lovely, cozy room just feet away, wherein nobody has a problem with smoking and all wish the ban would be repealed?

There are plenty of other studios nearby where (before the ban) the managers didn’t allow smoking inside. People could choose to go there, but because of this ban we can’t enjoy the environment which makes us happy.

The ban is just the first step on the way to a total ban of smoking; that infringes the right to freedom of choice, therefore fascism.

I’m not ignorant to the fact that some people don’t like the smell of smoke (although personally I love it) but I was dead against smoking for a few years before I sort of realized it’s not as bad as everyone says. People are just out to brainwash people out of it.

If it will get the ban lifted, even in certain places as some kind of compromise, the lib dems get my vote.

Answer the question.

That’s the benefit of never having handled a cigarette. Looking young at my age!

See the above. As a young whippersnapper,come back when your brain is fully developed.

Yes, pro-tobacco mountebanks do tend to occupy the right, don’t they?

Consider, if you will, that sickeningly sanctimonious, holier-than-thou moraliser, Dr Roger Scruton. Yes, it turned out that said self-proclaimed paragon of pure virtue was being paid by Japan Tobacco to plant pro-tobacco articles in the press.

This is the same Dr Roger Scruton who thinks hanging people by mistake is OK, who finds tearing foxes to pieces “morally uplifting”, and calls upon us oiks to show “respect” to our “betters”.

You’re in nice company, Joe Camel.

(No, I’m, not going to use this post to maul a silly old man. Far better to savage the likes of Scruton.)

You’re not fooling anyone with a 3 digit IQ. Blow it out your left wing cloaca,

It sounds as if you’ve done to your brain with tobacco what George W Bush has done to his with Jack Daniels.

“Authoratative on linguistics.

Authoritarian on everything else.”

Which is presumably why I oppose martial law for under 16s. Tee hee.

How much is your Robert Wood Johnson check for?

Authoritarian on everything else.

You are raising non-issues. The law is perfectly capable of fashioning adequate definitions of terms like “public place”, etc.

BTW, the accusative of “who” is “whom”.

I don’t think everyone where will accept your definition, seeing as it is predicated on an issue where there is still no conclusive solution.

Who is forcing who here?

The irreduceable issue is as follows: forcing innocent people to breathe tobacco smoke is unacceptable in a civilised society and should not be tolerated.

A personal distaste for certain smells is not enough to justify legislation.

The health-related and environmental aspects of the issue need clearer definition – passive smoking is generally considered definable where it occurs in enclosed spaces, so if you wish to broaden this out and describe it as unacceptable pollution then you start to encroach on territory regarding all forms of pollution and problems arise with questions of jurisdiction and legitimacy.

Until there is international consensus on these principles enforcement is impossible.

The smoking issue is presented as a “debate” and a lot is talked about civil liberty. The issue is so clear it could not be simpler.
1. A civil right is the right to pursue one’s own interests in so far as they are legal and they do not infringe on the rights of others. Breathing obnoxious and unhealthy fumes is clearly an infringement wherever it occurs.
2. Smoking is a serious discomfort for most non smokers. Ask them. Recent laws to prevent it inside public areas was a response to this clear fact.
3. Allowing smoking in any area protects the rights only of the smokers and infringes on the rights of others.
4. Children are subjected to smoking without recourse for 18 years and if this were any other offence against them it would be actionable in law.
5. People who find smoking obnoxious are prohibited from Cruises, Boat rides, Outside eating and numerous other activities.
6. Other similarly socially unacceptable behaviour is not tolerated because it is less wide spread and is not an addiction with large money involvement. It is an offence to spit or dispose of litter. These are far less of a problem for non smokers.
7. Restricting smokers from indoor smoking has had a predictable and detrimental effect. I could avoid Pubs but I now have them in doorways and sitting in outside seating areas where I am obliged to go.
8. After 30 years of information stating that smoking is deadly for the smokers and others and is offensive to non smokers and especially children we are still paying large sums to beg them not to do it. We should by now be telling them it is unacceptable.
9. The argument that they have contributed to tax and been the victims of cigarette companies has long since run out.
The problems with smoking do not relate to reason or rights they are as follows:-
1. There are a lot of smokers who are also voters
2. There is big money involved
3. It is difficult to police
4. Smokers are addicts and likely to rebel violently to a total ban.
So it seems we are not concerned with what is clearly right but with what is pragmatic. Please do not justify Wars and other government acts on the basis of rights and justice. There is no such thing.

For the record I can bring myself to back this ban, but that depends on getting the conditionality correct.

So even assuming the health implications until Sesenco can expand on the definitions of public, private and innocent to general satisfaction I think the onus is still on the prohibitionists to prove his rhetorical point is anything more than imposing his own wishes on others.

As for limitations on the amount of drink that can be sold to prevent the risk of drunken behaviour – well, what about rules on legal age to purchase alcohol, rules on not serving drunk people, and schemes like pub watch etc?

I come at this not from someone trying to defend the smoking ban per se, but as someone who can see an argument for restrictions on smoking in public that are compatible with liberal principles.

I don’t know anything about Tom’s record as a councillor, but on the couple of times I’ve met him, he seems an intelligent, articulate and hard-working bloke. But why don’t we leave his council record to his constituents?