I went to Dublin in December, and it was wonderful to walk into any pub and smell food and alcohol instead of smoke. To make it through the night without developing a headache from the smoke fumes and to wake up the next morning not stinking of stale smoke and without a rasping sore throat was a joy. Soon in this country too, I won't have to wash each item of clothing and my hair after just one trip out to a pub. And I haven't even got on to the long-term health benefits. It's fantastic. I do think, however, that a ban on smoking in private members bars is foolhardy, as surely this decision should be up to a members' vote? On the whole I welcome the ban on smoking in public places - and urge people on both sides of the argument not to make inane comparisons which devalue some of their more cogent arguments. Helen Taylor, Oxford

The intentions of the smoking ban are completely valid. However, it is important to appreciate what exactly is classed as smoking. For some cultures, it is tradition to smoke socially via the water pipe or sheesha which can be seen in many Middle Eastern cafes across the UK. The public ban is an extreme solution to a growing problem in the UK and globally. The better and more realistic approach would have been to enforce the ban in certain restaurants and bars where the owners agree to it. This way, restaurants that allow smoking will benefit financially and the smokers will have somewhere to do it so they avoid loitering outside and smoking at home around children. Restaurants and bars that enforce a non-smoking policy will benefit also, as they will appeal to a niche who choose to be in this environment. There is a market in both cases. Sabaa Alyanai, Birmingham

If they had passed this 60 years ago my Grandad might still be alive. He died of passive smoking - but I won't. David Holland, London

Unfortunately, it is not until you stop smoking that you realise just how ignorant and arrogant you are when you light up in an environment where there are people around you, whether they be smokers or non-smokers. As a smoker, I looked forward to the ban, as a non-smoker I look forward to it even more. I would like to apologise publicly to all the people I have upset over the years with my smoking, especially my children and my husband. I hope they never have to look after me in the future because I was a smoker, and I hope I have caused them no harm because of my "addiction". It's not that hard to give up. Moira Robertson, Brechin

As a very heavy smoker who is totally addicted to the evil weed, I have some sympathy with the vast majority of non-smokers in the UK who find it annoying to have to put up with the smell of my habit invading their personal space. However, to justify a total ban on smoking in public places by quoting a series of dodgy studies, without any serious laboratory investigations to prove that passive smoking kills is jumping the gun, to say the least. If a properly-funded and medically-qualified research study proved that passive smoking did, in fact, cause early death to people around me, I would have no problem in accepting the ban. I feel that what is being paraded around at the moment is dodgy science, and as long as scientists come out on both sides of the passive smoking debate, surely a total ban is premature. I would be horrified if I was causing health problems to my friends and family with my habit but as long as people cleverer than me argue about the veracity of the claim that passive smoking equals early death, I don't know who to believe. Michael Freeman, London

I'm all for the ban, because it will only truly affect non-smokers. People won't stop smoking because the habit is just that addictive - they just won't be able to do it wherever they please. Barry Petchesky, Philadelphia

It is ridiculous and extremely selfish of smokers to think that they should be able to inflict their habit on non-smokers anywhere they wish. Aside from the health implications of passive smoking, smoke makes a person's hair and clothes smell disgusting and it means clothes have to be washed before they can be worn again. This alone is good enough reason for banning smoking as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps smokers are themselves so used to the stench that they forget what they smell like. I am looking forward to the day when drinks can be enjoyed anywhere without being subjected to others' smoke. It is beyond me how anyone can think this ban is an infringement of civil liberties for smokers. Smoking is a very expensive habit, is obviously a disaster for your health, is anti-social and selfish, makes you looked prematurely aged and affects the health of those around you. Why can't smokers just muster some willpower and use one of the many products available to help them give up? It seems a very small price to pay for the indisputable benefits. Ruth Keogh, Oxford

It is interesting to find that there are so many objecting smokers who must be either in denial about the effects on their health and others or just plain selfish in wanting to endanger their family, friends and others as well as impose the unpleasant aspects of their habit. Though legal and taxed, tobacco usage is an addiction and the Government should now really step up and enhance prevention and cessation support, similarly for alcohol. Curiously help for addicts on illegal addictive drugs seems, to an observer, better even they don't similarly pay tax. Douglas Murray, Eastbourne

I know many heavy smokers who, instead of going out to pubs and clubs, will now remain at home smoking in the presence of their children. Doesn't seem fair to me. I am OK, having emigrated to Spain where the term "nanny state" has no direct translation and where they allow grown-ups to decide where to work, eat and drink. It is up to the owner of the premises to decide how he wants to run his business and who he encourages through the doors. Gary Allen, Essex

Who is going to police the fines that are going to be administered? Why put the onus on owners/managers of establishments - do they have the time and resources to implement the new rules? Then, what about the taxes that the Government will now miss out on, i.e. VAT on income generated from alcohol and tobacco sales? Who is going to cop additional taxes for the extra income the government will demand? The arguments against this ban are numerous. The reasons for it is simple - protecting peoples' health. I am a non-smoker and always have been, but I am treasurer of a members-only club and this ban will ultimately close us. Mark France, West Yorkshire

I'm not a smoker myself, but am absolutely disgusted with our elected representatives for not implementing the ban as it was laid out in New Labour's election manifesto. To change the rules is a betrayal of democratic principles. In this case, smokers can rightly claim to have been victimised. Who's next I wonder? The obese, drinkers, 4x4 drivers, pet owners? You can be assured that the "great and the good" are already lining up tomorrow's target. Julian Tamor, London

Even the industry now accept that tobacco smoke is a carcinogen; and yet they expect us to believe that the same smoke being breathed by the "non-smoker" standing alongside is harmless. How can that possibly be? A carcinogen is a carcinogen. Paul Randall, Chichester

I have used pubs, clubs and bars regularly for 26 years. I agree there should be private members' clubs where people can smoke. However, to be able to pop into a pub for half an hour and not have to wash or clean anything I am wearing due to the smell will be a joy. Neil Warner, Wantage