I have never smoked, but I take issue with our Government trying to legislate a one-size-fits-all ban accross our society. The deciding factor in all of this should be personal choice. I would like to see our highstreets offer a variety of smoking an non-smoking establishments, from which the consumer is able to choose. Graham de Montrose, London

Why all the fuss about smoking in pubs? As a Brit living in Canada, we have banned smoking everywhere, except for the outdoors, and it works just fine. Sure those old smoke sucking dinosaurs complain on the way to their treatment for lung cancer, but we just ignore them. The sooner smoking is banned everywhere, the better it will be for us all. Tony Starkey, Pickering, Canada

Once again, the Government has taken a simple issue and turned it into a quagmire which will be difficult to implement. What will food cover? Snacks or only main dishes? Crisps and peanuts but not sandwiches? Why is it so difficult for anyone to see that the whole purpose of this bill was to protect the non-smoking customers and staff from secondary smoke. As a by-product it would have saved many lives as some smokers would have given up smoking rather than be anti-social and smoke outside on pavements or sealed rooms. I think there should be a complete ban in public places. Private clubs should be exempt. Vinay Mehra, Purley

If the Government is trying to improve public health and respect the view of the majority, then smoking in all public places (pubs, cafes, parks) should be illegal. The government is trying to please everyone, when it would be better to take a few comments "on the chin" and enforce a total ban. Either ban it, or leave it. Stop flip-flopping. Daniel Scullane, Bath

The only valid reasons to ban smoking in pubs are those based on the preferences of some non-smokers to drink in a smoke-free environment. This I see as fair play - the simple situation is we have two groups who disagree on a minor difference. Where is the requirement to use legislation to enforce one sides views? As another poster commented, pubs should be allowed to use market forces to decide. If smoke free pubs were endorsed by the majority of the population then they would have moved that way already. The simple fact is that smoke free drinking establishments do not do as well. People boycott them. People like my friends and myself. We go to a pub or restaurant for a social event where we like to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco. They go well together and so we don't like to go where we are not allowed to smoke. And why should the establishments be forced to cater for a minority who are hysterical about a tiny risk? It's their problem, not the smokers problem. The real reason the Government wants to do it is, in all fairness, more noble. It's for the general health of the smokers - they want to find another lever to try to encourage smokers to give up. But as such we have to ask - is it their place to do so? Protect us from ourselves? Smokers know the risks, and choose to take them. And before anyone says that smokers becoming ill is a drain on the NHS, lets not forget that smoking heavily subsidises the NHS since pretty much the whole cost of tobacco is tax. Pete Collins, Woking

The local pub to my office has seen business boom since it banned smoking. Previously the two smokers out of my 20 strong department stank the place out for the rest of us, now who are the selfish ones there? Luke Nicolaides, Epsom

In this day and age pubs find it hard to make ends meet if they do not sell food. Staff are at tremendous risk standing behind the bar when the customers are allowed to smoke. The non-smoking customers go home and immediately have to strip of and wash all their clothing. Landlords who think that they are going to look good in the eyes of their smoking customers would soon change their mind if or when the non smoking customers go to non smoking establishments. Please see sense - let the smokers stay in a properly designated space not near a bar and let the others enjoy relatively clean air, that way we can all enjoy our leisure time. Brian Kingston, Tewkesbury

I recently had dinner at a non-smoking pub and cannot begin to explain the vast difference to a "normal" pub. I gave up smoking over three years ago but continue to cringe at the thought of how I smelt for 30 years. Daryl Evans, Melksham

I am married to a smoker. His only vice is smoking, I enjoy the occasional puff myself. I am tired of the patronising and vitrolic approach of the Anti Smoking lobby. Okay, smoking does kill some people, I would however point out that the smokers in our families lived very long and happy lives, and when they died it was due to old age (90 I think could be viewed as extreme old age!) and not "smoking related illnesses". Should I come down with anything, the very last place on earth I would choose to go is our "wonderful" NHS, so that takes care of the whingers who moan about smokers taking up valuable NHS resources. By the way, a health obsessed fitness fanatic friend of mine dropped dead at the gym, he was 35, never smoked in his life and a frantically neurotic approach to life. Sarah Marquis, London

I support complete ban on smoking at public places.also thre should be restrictions on the advertisments and sales to children, especially in third world countries. Rajeev Khaneja, Mumbai, India

The list of smoking-related diseases is very long. The cost of these to the National Health Service is high. Let us not forget that these are self-inflicted diseases and the burden on the NHS would be greatly reduced if they did not exist. The Government should have the courage to introduce a total ban on smoking on public places. Ian Henderson, Selby

The vast majority of smokers have no desire whatsoever to inflict their smoke upon non-smokers. What is offensive is the anti-smoking league's assertion that because they find it offensive it should be banned in all enclosed places. Surely there is scope for smoking and non smoking pubs and restaurants? The Government harps on about choice with regard to schools, hospitals, etc, but people are not to have the choice of whether they want to go to a smoking or non-smoking establishment? As a non-smoker, I will frequent non-smoking pubs. Should I decide to start smoking one day I will, no doubt, appreciate the choice to go to a smoking pub and enjoy a cigarette with my pint. Similarly, no one should be forced to work in a smoke filled environment. Prospective workers can be informed before accepting a job whether it is a smoking or non-smoking establishment. Smokers are well aware of the health consequences of their habit. Any legislation should be based on the premise that non-smokers should be able to frequent a wide choice of restaurants and pubs that do not allow smoking. To suggest that smokers should not be given the right to go to a restaurant or pub that does allow smoking is neither democratic, nor fair. The number of non-smoking pubs is, at present, far too few. We should not make the mistake of swinging the pendulum too far the other way. Nicholas Ord, Guildford

I used to smoke but gave up because of the outcome I felt certain I would face. At 24 I had already developed a smokers cough and dreaded to think what the future might hold. Now I prefer to go to the one or two non smoking pubs in my town because it is just so much nicer. You walk in to the pub expecting to be hit by the usual stinking fug but are greeted by clean air - how nice is that? If only smokers could see that too. I gave up and found it to be a small sacrifice to make for my health, my looks, my wallet, the way I smell and the way I am perceived. I choose food over fags any day and hopefully will live a long and healthy life because of that. Sophie Evans, Chichester