Surely almost anyone

I regard the evidence that passive smoking kills to be so close to nonexistence that it could not properly be used to convict someone on a charge of having an unrenewd dog licence.

At worst, smoking kills. At best, it is a pestilential nuisance.

The new legislation will eliminate this vile practice from most enclosed public spaces. This is an unqualified benefit to everyone except the tobacco companies, so how can it be illiberal?

Surely there is nothing illiberal about protecting people from the danger and nuisance posed by unwanted ambient tobacco smoke?

We don’t allow people to defecate in the street, do we? Is that illiberal, too?

I would go further and ban smoking in all public open spaces (like streets, parks, etc), in front of children anywhere, and by pregnant women.

Part of me would love to outlaw smoking altogether, but the liberal in me says that people should be allowed to harm themselves as long as they don’t harm innocent third parties by so doing. Smoking in private and away from children (as long as one is not pregnant) is OK by me.

I would also ban it in prisons and mental hospitals.

Smoking on TV and in films is problematic. We have a conflict here between artistic freedom and the need to avoid positive images of tobacco.

Historical dramas have to have smoking (even glamorous smoking) in the interests of verisimilitude. Contemporary plays are more difficult. If only criminals, prostitutes, paedophiles, war criminals and football hooligans smoke, then that’s all to the good. It sends out the right message. But should we refrain from having “normal” and “upright” people smoke just to avoid sending out the wrong message? I am very uneasy about using the arts for didactic purposes. To put it bluntly, it smells of ideological manipulation, which I find uncomfortable. Having said that, whenever someone is shown smoking on TV and is pretending to enjoy it (if anyone ever could “enjoy” such a diseased habit) I feel like chucking a brick through the screen!

In a 100 years from now we’ll be wondering in amazement how smoking ever caught on.

At worst, smoking kills. At best, it is a pestilential nuisance.

The new legislation will eliminate this vile practice from most enclosed public spaces. This is an unqualified benefit to everyone except the tobacco companies, so how can it be illiberal?

Surely there is nothing illiberal about protecting people from the danger and nuisance posed by unwanted ambient tobacco smoke?

We don’t allow people to defecate in the street, do we? Is that illiberal, too?

I would go further and ban smoking in all public open spaces (like streets, parks, etc), in front of children anywhere, and by pregnant women.

Part of me would love to outlaw smoking altogether, but the liberal in me says that people should be allowed to harm themselves as long as they don’t harm innocent third parties by so doing. Smoking in private and away from children (as long as one is not pregnant) is OK by me.

I would also ban it in prisons and mental hospitals.

Smoking on TV and in films is problematic. We have a conflict here between artistic freedom and the need to avoid positive images of tobacco.

Historical dramas have to have smoking (even glamorous smoking) in the interests of verisimilitude. Contemporary plays are more difficult. If only criminals, prostitutes, paedophiles, war criminals and football hooligans smoke, then that’s all to the good. It sends out the right message. But should we refrain from having “normal” and “upright” people smoke just to avoid sending out the wrong message? I am very uneasy about using the arts for didactic purposes. To put it bluntly, it smells of ideological manipulation, which I find uncomfortable. Having said that, whenever someone is shown smoking on TV and is pretending to enjoy it (if anyone ever could “enjoy” such a diseased habit) I feel like chucking a brick through the screen!

There are a number of people who are anti the ban who seem to have abstained.

The consequence of this ill thought-out nonsense for my (mid-terrace, no food) local will be the likes of me on the pavement, walking past notices of ‘if you do smoke please do so silently’ and annoying the neighbours (probably). Where will the ashtrays be?

Or how will the town centre ‘vertical drinking’ establishments cater for it? If people have saved seats in a crowded bar with their coats/bags and want to smoke, once they fight their way past the bouncers, they’ll get their coats/bags nicked or lose their place/seat. It’s mind-bogglingly impractical and daft.

James it is illiberal - it’s a nonsense, statist solution (not words I use regularly) which misses several points at once. But you’re spot on to say that licensing is the solution - as can be seen from my example above.

Whatever. I don’t want to get the Mill fanatics hopping up and down on my head. My point is there are very few absolutes in liberalism, and you should be wary of saying there are.