i believe smoking should be allowed in public places , what harm would it do to have a smoking area with ventilation and a few windows open. india is right we are being forced about , its our lives we should be able to smoke when and whenever we want

matt, ards, northern ireland

who are the real selfish and inconsiderate people? the smokers who want to have there own pubs and venues seperate from the gullible non smokers, or the non smokers who want to force everyone to live and act the same as them, as if we were all robots? i thought this was a freee society.

clif, london, england

"The smokers don’t find... breathing in the pollution as well as the nicotine, particularly enchanting..." Rather than non-smokers breathing in your smoke, you mean?

"smokers who would never dream of lighting up anywhere near their children are now forced to do so" - FORCED?

Seek help, India

Matt, London,

This is the woman who condemned a lady for giving up her very disabled daughter for fostering - more disabled than any of us can even imagine. Motherhood demands sacrifices she says.

SO GIVE UP SMOKING FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR CHILDREN!!

Talk about double standards..

Helen, Fleet, UK

what a wonderful place this country would be if freedom of choice existed. If smokers was allowed to have pubs and venues seperate from non smokers ones. But you may not see that in this so called free country, because some nonsmokers believe if i don't like it nobody else should be allowed to do it

clif, london, england

Smoking affects everyone , smoker or not.My daughter works in a bar to boost her student loan, says its wonderful to not come home every night reeking of stale smoke.Lots of people have returned to local pubs because of the fresh atmosphere, smokers still there. We are approx.51st country to ban.

Alex Robertson, Worcs, England

Interesting if this article really does describe the UK experience.
New Zealand has had the smoking ban for 3 years and approval has only risen. Amongst non-smokers (predictably) from 74% to 82%, but amongst smokers from 29% to 64% after 2 years, according to some surveys.

Katy Espe, Gothenburg, Sweden

There is a difference between smoking and all of the other 'bad habits' you rant on about. Eat a huge greasy artery clogging burger and I am in no way obliged to share it with you. Smoke a cigarette at the table next to mine and I have no choice but to share it with you.

Red, Copenhagen, Denmark

Have smokers now gone teetotal, staying home sulking with their fags? Should we allow ourselves to be subjected to toxic fumes so that someone can sell more beer? Are non smokers all bores? Are smokers really individualistic rebels, not addicts?

No. I didn't think so either.

Andrew, Edinburgh, UK

Is the Martin Dockrell who posted below the Martin Dockrell from ASH (Action on Smoking and Health)?

Could you please direct me to the original survey where I can study the full report rather than ASH's synopsis.

Jay, Stockton, UK

What disappointing gibberish from someone so usually reliable. Drug addicts have a habit of sounding desperate, hysterical and illogical when they talk about their own poison. Ms Knight should therefore steer well clear of the whole subject.

Liam O'Driscoll, Leicester, Leics

At last, something of a fight-back. Nice article (though I have some reservations about the smoking at the dinner table bit - non-smokers have a point on that one) and long overdue. Personally, I advocate that smokers boycott pubs until the legislation changes. You can have all the debate you want on this issue, but now that the wishes of the killjoys have come to pass then the whole thing comes down to the money in your pocket. Pubs (and the government) want some of it. Don't let them have it until you are once again treated like a decent human being.

Adrian, Wantage,

The smoking ban hollier than thou bunch will now move on to something else as is their pattern. I owned 3 pubs in Norfolk for many years. Good old fashioned village pubs where locals and non-locals had enjoyed themselves for generations I have shut and de-licensed 2 of the pubs as a direct result of the smoking ban. We had to make 11 people redundant. We tried to compensate for the loss of custom and even to pander to the non smokers who before the ban had proclaimed a smoke free pub would bring more of their ilk to our door. Of course, as predicted, all they really wanted was to tell others what to do and then move on. They allways had a free choice to keep away before the ban but many of them came in with a clear intent of moaning about the smoke.

Harry Roberts, halesworth,

I am thrilled that I can have an evening out without having to come home and immediately shower, wash my hair and put all my clothes into the wash! Smoking is a revolting habit and very anti social. I would go further and ban smoking around doorways.

Jenny, Reading,

Ms. Knight bemoans the forced intermittent separation of smoking and non-smoking friends in today's restaurants yet later in the article yearns for the return of non-smoking and smoking areas!
She also apparently thinks that we non-smokers should once again be forced to endure pub and restaurant fug to prevent selfish smokers becoming criminally selfish by poisoning their own children.
Here, in black and white, we can witness the power of nicotine to induce the most outrageous cognitive dissonance.

Ron Osmond, Hinckley,

My family are thrilled by the ban on smoking in restaurants and cafes. In the past we have bypassed many places and in some, left as quickly as possible to avoid the exhalation of smokers covering my family, food and drinks in their disgusting muck!!!

Carolyn, Munich, Germany

"the kind of social smokers who would never dream of lighting up anywhere near their children are now forced to do so"

No-one is "forcing" you to smoke near your children.

When are you going to grow up and realise that the reason smoking is banned is that it impinges on everyone elses right to breathe clean air - in contrast to drinking and eating fatty foods which doesn't (fortunately) put the person siiting at the next table at risk of cirrhosis or obesity!

Poll after poll have shown a majority would support a smoking ban, so any referendum would be a big waste of taxpayers' money

Dom, Bristol,

India, you can puff away until the smoke emerges from every orifice for all I care! As long as you don't do it in front of me - it causes nausea, coughing and stinging eyes. I am not some Mary Poppins puritan killjoy, and would be more than happy to see pubs and restaurants install closed-off smoking rooms.

One other point: I enjoy wine, but itf obliged to eat in an alcohol-free restaurant I wouldn't feel compelled to keep popping out to swig from a hip flask. Perhaps some smokers have let the habit go beyond being a mere pleasure.

Janet Davis, Sydney, Australia

My wife and I and another couple have been visiting the UK each spring for 25 years. We stay in pubs and tour different areas by rental car. We usually stay for a week and spend approximately 2,000 GBP per couple. Your Pubs were one of the main reasons we visited your country. All of us loved the friendly atmosphere and convivial conversation. What a civilized institution you had. Since the smokers have been banned that atmosphere is gone. You've let them kill a unique and special part of Britain. Were all the smart, funny, friendly people smokers? Of course not but certainly a great many were. We miss it already. We won't be back any time soon. I'm sure the Nannies will say "good riddance, they you don't need our measly 2,000". I know we'll always remember with fondness all the good times we had in your once great pubs I'm sorry for all of you who've lost that priceless institution. You really should send send Nannie back to the Nursery.
Gary Packard

Gary Packard, Sausalito, USA

Quote India Knight "Which is a real shame because the smoking ban is killing social life and killing the businesses of those who try to provide it."
Well at least 2nd hand smoke isn't killing people anymore, if people can't be trusted to respect other rights then it's up to the state to protect them!

JD, St Albans, UK

Well, wouldn't it be nice if, just for a change, all those whining health Nazis thanked us smokers for keeping their tax bills down?

Bill Beethan, Moscow, Russia

I'd love to know if India smokes in the same room as her "special needs" child? or does she refrain from poisoning her own?

John Daniels, Redbourn, UK

Boris is indeed the breath of fresh air we need!! Not withstanding his stance on Smoking.

I have not bothered to go out at all this winter. Entertaining at home is cheaper, and yes have a Cigarette with your Coffee.

Is it really too much to ask? Most restaurants had good Air Conditioning, and no smoking areas anyway. And yes, it's killing the Pub trade too.

Oh Nanny, do go away.

Carrie, London,

Well I for one loved your article India, I am now one of those stay at homes with my cheap supermarket wine. Hubby who has never smoked and I think deep down was looking forward to the ban, does not even bother to ask me to go to the pub anymore. The last time we down down to our local 3 people plus 3 of us were in there, hubby then said, the ban has killed off the pub atmosphere. So we have been out twice sine the ban came in. If we go out to a restaraunt, we no longer stay for pudding or extra drinks. I feel sorrry for the elderly who live in isolation, with no computors, who must feel totally alone on the issue. And lots of others who feel like they have no voice.
I too am angry, with the lies, the propaganda, and the hateful comments I read everyday online.
freedom2choose.info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike, who continue to fight for choice

mandyv, cambs, uk

Good article India, but fatal that you used unhealthy eating as an example. It''s bad enough that we have the malicious rabid anti-smoking zealots pushing their propaganda, now we'll have them joining the Health Alliance to stop us eating & drinking.

Smokers/Non-smokers alike can write as many articles as they like but the anti-bangwagon will continue to roll. This Smoking Ban Experiment wasn't brought in on factual scientific results, but on Personal Dislike of a minority of influential people that organised and financed that once TINPOT organisation ASH, and for some reason the majority of smokers have pathetically complied with this undemocratic ban. I've noticed since the ban was introduced how spiteful and malicious many non-smokers have become. We all know there's ventilation that will eliminate smoke, but it's anathema to the antis. The only consolation is that there will be a ban coming to them sometime soon, something they enjoy will be banned. Can't wait for it to happen

sarah, london,

The ban has nothing to do with health, as the public will soon find out. The ban is the result of a fanatical lie that has been indoctrinating people for decades, and now has political power. The truth about smoking , passive or otherwise, is far from what is described here by the gullible. A smoker dies, therefore he was killed? Very scientific. I suppose that's why the highest longevity rates are in the countries with the highest smoking rates, and the increasing rates of cancer and heart disease are in countries with the lowest smoking rates. Of course these are facts that some posters here, would not want to accept.
As for passive smoke, if it were true that a little nicotine is extremely addictive, then show me a non-smoker exposed for years who is addicted. There would be millions of them if the propaganda was true, but you wont find any. Funny that.

Zitori Markews, London, UK

As a publican, I have to say the smoking ban is all but killing trade. The figures my accountant have shown me on a year-on-year comparison since the ban came in are truly terrifying.

I would have rather been told to enforce a dedicated smoking and non-smoking section in my pub that would have kept both sides happy. Ventilation systems are so good these days that the smoking side would not have encroached on the non-smokers and staff at all. And it would have been a hell of a site cheaper than building the shelter I had to build that nobody wants to use.

Mark J Daniels, Chippenham, Cambridgeshire

I'll also add that, alcohol certainly does jump out of a glass, because the evaporation of alcoholic drinks gives off much more carcinogen into the air than smoke. Scientific fact. Not that you want to hear that either. 'They' don't want you to know. It always suprises me how ilinformed the anti-smoker is about real science, as opposed to epidemiology junk, and blind hatred. I'm afraid it just doesn't wash. The trash 'science' and that's being kind, behind the smoking bans would certainly be torn to pieces in court, and that's where it should be, and it's perpetraitors. Let's hope soon.

Zitori Markews, London, UK

Half-way through the article, we see India's reasoning: She's a nicotine addict.

That she thinks it's acceptable to threaten other's health and lives goes someway to showing the power of nicotine and its insidious grip on smokers.

This quote is particularly telling:

"the kind of social smokers who would never dream of lighting up anywhere near their children are now forced to do so."

"Forced to do so"???? Are you seriously insinuating that smokers are being 'forced' to harm their children?

Maybe you are right. Maybe we should not underestimate this drug, not only does it enslave its users it also distorts the natural, protective, nurturing instinct inherent in all mammals.

Perhaps a ban on where you can smoke is not enough, is it time to stub tobacco out forever?

Simon, Lowestoft, UK

just a thought an anagram of Carcinogenic is almost CAR ENGINE, the real cause of lung disorders.

Anthony Williams, Leicester, uk

One thing almost everybody forgets about the smoking ban is that the places where the ban is in place are also workplaces.
I have worked for years in a job where I had to visit pubs, clubs and restaurants. I developed a serious throat problem and suffer migraine where smoking is permitted. I was in the pubs doing a job, as are company representatives, trading standards officials, delivery people, installation and repair technicians etc. etc.
Why shouldn't we all be protected from other people smoking. Nobody is stopping these people smoking, they just can't do it where it has an affect on others.

Anthgony, Halesowen, West Mids

Oh dear. Where to start? Boris recognises that he doesn’t have the power to opt London out of national legislation and that if he did a web poll would be a pretty silly way to do it. Most of all he knows that the smokefree laws are extremely popular with Londoners (not least his boss).

If only India Knight were to be so aware of her errors. In a recent nationwide poll, 72% of Londoners supported the law and for every Londoner who strongly opposed it there were 5 who strongly supported it. How could this be in such a tolerant and cosmopolitan city? Because Londoners know that the law isn’t some malign plot to annoy smokers and hacks but a sensible measure to protect the health of the rest of us.

True, pubs are nicer places to be (according to two thirds of pub going Londoners compared to only 1 in 10 who disagrees) but the real question is “Is it good for our health?” Four out of 5 Londoners believe the law has been good for bar workers health and 7 out of 10 believe it has been

Martin Dockrell, London, England

I normally enjoy India Knight's columns because she writes pertinently, I don't always agree with her viewpoint but appreciate her wisdom. Not this time. What a load of self-righteous drivel. In my social circle there are very few smokers, most of them having given up (myself included) because it is antisocial and unhealthy. IK has greatly exaggerated the effects of the ban, the restaurants where I live they are far busier because the clientel are enjoying the fresher ambience. Smokers are inconsiderate and it is naive to believe that they would regulate themselves given time - I have lost count of the times that I have been alongside a group in a bar/restaurant and one of the groups' smokers has wafter the cigarette smoke away from his/her group and inflicted it on mine. Leaving the choice of smoking v non-smoking to the owners is a non-starter and the task of policing a non-smoking establishment without the backing of the law is unworkable.

Elaine, Wirral,

I LOOOVE THE BAN!!! I just love it, can’t help it! How GREAT going to a pub and not having your clothes and hair smell of cigarettes!! BRILLIANT!!!

Smokers, one question: Can’t you control your habit? How can something dirty and toxic like cigarettes dictate your social life??? CAN’T YOU COPE?? That’s crazy! If a few hours away from tobacco are just too much for you to handle, you need HELP!!

By the way, is it a choice or an addiction? You smokers can have it both ways, you know. If it is a choice, why can’t you have a nice night out with friends without your precious ciggies?

The facts: smoking is VERY harmful and unpleasant and smokers are not considerate; they would smoke everywhere and every time if you let them, there is no asking politely, they say “the smoke is not going there” but it is, it always is! Why should non-smokers and pub employees suffer? where is their CHOICE? The ban is the only sensible thing to do, call it nanny estate, but you can’t control your addiction/habit, so you obviously need a nanny.

I feel sorry for India’s (and smokers’ in general) children. ADULTS can make choices, whilst Children suffer in silence. (My parents were heavy smokers, which put me off cigarettes for life.)

Get help! Stop smoking! Smoke less! (or stay at home and sulk!)

GOD SAVE THE BAN!

Maya, Birmingham,

"If you smoke, cigarettes punctuate a meal: going without is like trying to speak without pauses. "

Wow! that is some heavy addiction you have got there India Time to quit me thinks. And guess what - you will even be able to taste the food you are eating once you have ditched your revolting habit

Marina, Northampton,

I've never smoked. But I have never had a problem with smokers. Let everyone smoke, please. Who cares? It's a pleasurable indulgence that keeps people sane.

Chris, London,

India's hilariously mistaken assumption that the public smoking ban was brought in by a nanny state desperate to save her from ill health (rather than to save the 70% of us who don't smoke from being kippered by her stinking cancer sticks) is a wonderful illustration of most smokers' utter solipsism and selfishness. I'd rather smell a thousand fetid pub urinals than endure any more contact lens itching and ciggy stinking clothes and hair. Not to mention people lighting up next to me in restaurants when they can see I'm heavily pregnant. I'm afraid that if the majority of smokers showed any consideration for other people, we'd never have needed the legislation in the first place.

Lucy, London,

Great article India. Common sense at last. Unfortunately, our MPs are not of the opinion of listening to 12-15m of their own population and the tolerant non-smoking friends that they have, so nothing will change.

Hussah to the miserablists in society. :-(

Alan Thrower, London,

Here here, India!

As a smoker, it's not so much the ban itself as the nanny-state atmosphere of its introduction that grated with me. As so many other people have commented, it's about CHOICE. Pubs, bars and restaurants should have been encouraged to be non-smoking if they wanted to, leaving other pubs to be for smokers if the landlord wanted it. Market choice would have prevailed here.

I really wouldn't have minded if the government had said, d'you know what, lots of people don't smoke and it's not that pleasant for them to be forced to inhale smoke, so why don't we try limiting the public places where people do smoke? Smokers aren't unreasonable. We just sound it now because instead of finding a middle ground that suited everyone, draconian legislation was introduced in such a manner as to make us feel like lepers. It's a legal activity for anyone over 18 i.e. adults. Why not treat smokers like adults and just ask them nicely to be more considerate?

bella, London,

What about freedom of choice ? My friends and I enjoy a Cuban cigar at the weekend so why can't we visit a cigar club ?
I cannot accept that in the year 2008 there is not a suitable ventilation system that can deal with excessive smoke.
All the do gooders seem to think they are going to live for ever ! they wont. And finally the 'ban smoking' campaigners are now turning to alcohol - I've never really understood the connection as you never see anyone causing trouble at the A & E hospital after enjoying a cigarette or cigar. Its a hypocritical situation as we are allowed to purchase tobacco and pay the huge tax levy.

Leon Price, Nottingham,

I smoke. I wish to smoke indoors, and I do not wish non-smokers to be affected. This can be achieved without a draconian smoking ban, given the technology available.
Given that this ban has been enacted with NO scientific evidential support, I would suggest that all non-smokers realise that allowing any legislation to be passed based on propaganda and not science is in no-one's interest, and only opens the door for further restrictive legislation which may eventually affect you. Well done India for voicing the opinion of a victimised 21%+ of the population.

Colin R, Northampton, UK

Well, Emma from London summed up my thoughts beautifully.
We have enjoyed a smoke free environment in B.C. for a few years now, even more stringent laws have recently been applied making it even more difficult for smokers to share their habit with everyone. People are quitting in larger numbers, a win, win situation.
Yes, Charles from Helsinki, killing baby seals is far more abhorant than smoking, but we're not dealing with that issue in this article. Maybe India could get on that and write something useful instead of self pitying whining about a disgusting habit she feels we all need to partake in.

Sally, Cranbrook, Canada

With regard to Jenny's comment , which is often echoed by others who blame cheap supermarket booze, there has been an acceleration in pub and club closures since the introduction of the smoking ban. The ban has been the only factor that is different so it can be the only factor causing the acceleration.

Jay, Stockton, UK

Never ceases to amaze me how easily hate can be manufactured. Were the goverment to put billions into media-loaded propaganda campaigns about the awfulness of redheads and-- as Goebbels said-- repeat it often enough, we'd have eager tribalists yammering about redheads standing around doorways and emitting evil carcinogenic gleams.

Clearly something profoundly fishy is going on when all these smoke-o-phobes find it insufficient to clear the air of smoke w/o clearing out the smokers (easily possible) or won't consider smokers-only establishments. That fishy smell is pure brainwashed hatred.

A guy here said the poor can't "entertain at home." Sure they can. Put on a pot of spaghetti, have your friends bring the sausage, the bread and their own beer. They'll be more than happy to sit on your floor and enjoy themselves as relaxed and self-respecting guests. Besides, boycott is only way to end this.

Walt Cody, New York City, NY

I am thrilled that I can have an evening out without having to come in and immediately shower, wash hair and put all my clothes in the wash to get rid of the stench.
No one is asking smokers to give up, if they want to kill themselves that is their own choice, but if they have got an anti social habit they should do it in private.
I think that the downturn in the economy and cheap booze in the supermarket has more to do with people staying away from pubs, it is very convenient for smokers to put it down to themselves.

Jenny, Reading,

For decades the number of smokers has declined and the number of vehicles on our roads have increased. The Norwich Union state that asthma in children has increased fivefold in the last twenty five years. Vehicle fumes are the biggest cause of health problems.

chas, suffolk, england

To Charles Lewin in Helsinki.

Baby seals are not killed in Canada. This has been outlawed for several years.

What happens is that the Inuit and Newfoundlanders are deprived of their traditional livlihood by people in Europe who have very little knowedge of the situation

Tom Gray, Mansfield et Pontefract, Canada / Quebec

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the smoking ban, I have to take India up on her assertion about the relationship between poor diet and ill-health.

Smoking is far far more damaging to one's health than poor diet. You really are killing yourself with every breath you take. It is not only damaging your lungs but getting into your bloodstream and damaging your heart and all your vital organs. To say that smoking and eating a healthy diet is better than not smoking and eating an unhealthy diet is massively, massively self-deluding. If you don't believe me, ask a doctor - or if you can't be bothered, just do a bit of googling.

Kim, London,

India, you're spot on!

gerry, exeter, england devon

For once your reasoning does not wash, India Knight.
I do not suffer if someone stuffs his/her face with "toxic, obesity-causing carcinogenic nastiness" or booze. Its their body, not mine, their health not mine. Smoking however is different. Nonsmokers had to inhale the smoke. Smokers can take their smoke with them, into the glass cages at Heathrow or Ikea or elsewhere. Opium, Laudanum etc.was legal once too, now it is not.
Tme is up for smokers, they can smoke in private.

rose, Brussels,

India Knight makes a very good argument against the ban and tells us how she now visits freinds or has them to her home for socialising. That's one option for the middle classes. However, the people hit hardest by this ban are the lower paid and worse off.

People like me, whose social life tends to be mostly enjoyed in the pub. That's where we meet our freinds. We don't tend to do dinner parties so often. And, of course, there are the bingo clubs which were also a venue for people to meet and socialise. These are closing at an even more alarming rate than pubs, especially the independant ones, so that, not only are local people losing an important chance to meet and socialise, but hard working people are losing their livelihoods. All to satisfy the wishes of a new middle class patrician movement to protect the poor from themselves.

You anti smokers say you don't want to have to breathe my smoke. Separate areas and ventilation would solve that problem.

Well done, India.

michael davidson, Leith, Scotland

Wow India contratulations. You have expressed my sentiments exactly. I have had to give up smoking but I still like to see people smoke, I like the smell and the gesture of smoking and overall I like the libery of being able to choose what I do. Thanks for speaking on behalf of so many of us.

Maria, ALC,

Found out last night my local is closing, 25 years of being the centre of a community, and a family's livelihood, all gone, and all because of the smoking ban. The non-smokers who claimed they only didn't go out because of 'stinking of smoke' still stayed at home once the ban came into place. For many elderly people, the only place they had for social interaction with their peers has gone (especially since the post office is already closed) and the area now has no pubs at all still trading. So instead of a vibrant community facility, with people from all walks of live mixing and interacting, we'll have people sitting at home vegetating in front of Ant and Dec drinking cheap beer from the off license - and smoking as much as they like. This is not progress, it's a disgrace.

dave, prenton, wirral

Ms Knight misses the point. Ruining one's health in public by other means than smoking is a private affair and personal choice; but how does one keep one's smoke to one's self?

I've lost count of the restaurant meals that have been ruined by smokers at the next table lighting up between courses without a shred of consideration. And it's great to get home from the pub without smelling like an ashtray.

Long live the ban!

Steve Wallace, Hartlepool, UK

Imagine a scenario where a minority of the population enjoyed social farting. (A bizarre hobby, you might say, but what would you call setting fire to plant leaves and then inhaling the cancerous by-product?)
Then consider a meal with these flatulent fanatics or a night in the pub with them. A pretty unpleasant prospect, I agree.

Smokers need to realise , though, that given a choice between a night with a smoker or a farter, most of us non-smokers would choose the latter.

That is a measure of just how offensive and selfish are smokers who inflict their habit on those who don't share it.

arnoldo, Coventry,

There is another, grossly overlooked effect of the smoking ban: Blocked pavements. Walking down Fulham Road on a Friday or Saturday night (though I'm sure it's the same in every urban environment) very often sees pedestrians having to make perilous detours into moving traffic, as the pavements are crowded with smokers with nowhere else to go.

Before the smoking ban I could easily avoid any negative effects of others smoking by simply choosing not to go to the pub. But now other people's smoking is adversely affecting myself and all other road users, motorists included.

Even as a non-smoker, the smoking ban has eroded my freedom of choice.

Rob Taylor, London, UK

I like the smoking ban in pubs, clubs and restaurants. As a non-smoker, it was really unpleasant to endure other peoples' tobacco habit. However, I think there should have been a middle ground, so that a venue could have a smoking and non-smoking room where possible.

Donna Walker, effingham, Surrey

Absolutely spot-on Richard of Chelmsford,

During the debate on the smoking ban, I thought that it was extremely telling that the idea of having smoking and non-smoking places was dismissed by politicians and public officials as not being fair. The reason is because the those landlords that allowed smoking would have cleaned up putting non-smoking establishments out-of-business. Very democratic.

In other words, we can send people to the moon but we cannot find a practical way to separate smokers from non-smokers because people have that irritating habit of voting with their feet and persist in hanging around us ultra-cool smokers. And let us not forget that mythical, powerless bar tender who has no choice but to work in a smokey atmosphere. I still wonder why the argument - that they have chosen to put themselves in that environment in the first place and if they didn’t like it or were concerned for their health then they should go and look for another job - was never raised.

Jason Mead, Bristol, England

I love you India! There can be nothing more amusing than watching self-righteous, obese people, stuffing their faces with big Macs and chips while complaining bitterly about someone having a cigarette ten feet away. To Tom in Canada: killing baby seals is far more despicable than smoking a cigarette.

Charles Lewin, Helsinki,

India, you've got it so wrong here and usually your comments are spot on. Yes, it's a choice but make the choice to ditch this dirty, stinking habit, set an example to your children and give yourself a chance of sticking around to see them have children too. Can't believe you can lose 5 stone but can't put the fags down.

Emma, London, UK

Your drinking won't damage my liver but your smoking could damage my lungs. This is what the smoking ban is for - not to make you give up a habit you like but to prevent your habit harming other people.

Annie, Leeds,

Germany has also banned smoking in pubs and restaurants. All the restaurants I know were astonished to find how much their business has increased since the ban. Our local Italian restaurant went so far as to open a separate room for smokers. In 18 months I have yet to see anybody in there. People have rediscovered the taste of good food.
I'm not aware of our pubs smelling bad either. There is no need for a pub to stink of stale beer and sweat unless either the pub or its clientele are unwashed. Tackle the causes.

Rosemary Roberts, Germany,

This proves that smokers have absolutely no idea how disgusting they smell. Smokers stink. They may wash regularly, brush their teeth and clean their clothes, but they still absolutely reek. A non-smoker can smell a smoker a mile away. If a non-smoker spends any time with a smoker they will have find the stench of their own clothes and hair the next day absolutely unbearable. I suspect that when India does give up smoking she will be mortified to realise how smelly and her home used to be.
As for the idea that the ban has 'forced' people to smoke all over their children - well, how ludicrous.

Cece, London, UK

India Knight believes that non-smokers sit twiddling their thumbs wen the smokers retreat to indulge in their habit. What non-smokers really do is to talk about how glad they are that they do not have to put up with breathing cigarette smoke any more. What does irritate us is that we cannot go anywhere without the smokers in the party demanding to stop constantly to have a smoke.

Smoker's lives revolve around finding a place to have their next smoke. Visit a restaurant - they want a smoke. Visit a cathedral - they want a smoke. Go to a performance - do they talk about, enthuse about it, bemoan it - no, they have a smoke.

Non-smokers do not smoke. We do other things because we can. Smokers are unable to do other things.

In Canada, we have solved the problem of smokers huddled around doors. Smoking is now banned within 9 metres (30ft) of doors to public buildings.

Tom Gray, Mansfield et Pontefract, Canada / Quebec

I hate this government and their nannying but the smoking ban has resulted in great improvements to pubs, restaurants and clubs in this country. It used to be bad enough sitting in smoke filled pubs but then bringing that stench home on clothes and in hair was unbearable. Your comment that the smell of smoke masks other smells such as stale beer and body odour is a typical smokers argument and is ludicrous. Smokers are so used to the smell they carry about with them all day that they don’t notice it and so are therefore oblivious to how their smoking affects others. On the other hand though I have sympathy for the smokers who have lost their right to light up in indoor public spaces; no one likes to be told how to live. Ideally there should be smoking and non-smoking establishments but in proportion to the smoking (minority?) / non-smoking population in this country!

aelilk, London, UK

Good for you girl. I gave up because I could no longer take the hassle of being treated like a leper (I was actually snitched on, for smoking out of the window of a hotel, by the person next door!) but if anyone really thinks that smoking is one of the primary problems in this country then they are naive, to say the least. It amazes me how vicious people are about smokers - I suppose it is a problem that can be dealt with, whereas gun crime/rampant alcohol abuse/drugs etc are a little trickier ... I shouldn't say this, really, but keep flying the fag!!

Julia Thompson, london, UK

I think the point of the article is that we are not allowed personal choice by the nanny state, the anti smoking brigade will move on to something else to ban and drive that underground as well.

Guthrum, Bristol, England

What india has to say is spot on,and i would like to thank her for saying it, she is not alone in what she has to say,millions are saying the same things all over the Country,this smoking ban on its own will see Labour out of power come the next election,the Hospitality Industry in this Country is in tatters,the Government cannot produce any credible proof that secondhand smoke kills or even harms anyone,adults make a choice,smoking and non smoking venues are the answer,that should be up to the Landlord/Lady and the Club owners to decide,not a so called Government to impose a Nazi ban,cheers, Tug.

tug wilson, nottingham, england

The smoking ban is not there for your health, it is there for mine. It would be even better if smoking could be banned from near doorways, so non-smokers could enter buildings without having to inhale the foul stench.

Charles Bockett-Pugh, Sandhurst,

You anti-smoking zealots don't get it, do you? There were always perfectly workable alternatives to this ban, based on ventilation, separation and market choice. These would keep the vast majority happy without causing the devastation described by India - and she's only touched on the negative consequences of the blanket ban in pubs.

Brainwashed by bogus science, you also forget that not a single death ever, anywhere, has been attributed to secondhand smoke. If it is so dangerous, how come today's adult generation is the healthiest of all time despite growing up in a near permanent fog of tobacco smoke? And how come asthma - very rare among my schoolmates - in now rife among kids in a "smokefree" (how I hate that expression) Britain?

Full marks to India and Boris. Let them thump the table until common sense is restored and decent people comprising a quarter of the population are shown some respect.

PaulD, Essex,

The percentage of the population who smoke is a small fraction of what it was fifty years ago; yet heart disease and cancer rates are going through the roof. Why? Was there ever a more blatant case of "never let a fact get in the way of a good prejudice"? The dread phrase "passive drinking" is cropping-up with increasing frequency - so guess what's next.

I can't stand the taste or stench of onions or garlic, and they contaminate a high proportion of pre-cooked food (no doubt to mask the lousy quality of the ingredients). Could we have them banned please? Let's see how the finger-waggers like that.

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

I'm a smoker and I think it is an improvement that pubs and restaurants are smoke free. I don't think it was correct that the government introduced laws to enforce this. When we allow Governments to go down the route of imposing their values on society it is a very dangerous precedent. I guarantee that within the next few years we will see other similar laws imposed that will further erode the rights of individuals and businesses to make their own choices.

John, Reading, uk

What has been completely ignored in this debate is the smoking ban's assault on property. if I own a restaurant or a bar and want to allow people to smoke, that should be up to me. if you don't want to eat or drink in a smoky atmosphere, then don't come to my bar!! My bar is not a public place, it is a privately-owned space that is open to the public. I am responsible for paying the rent in my bar. I have paid for it's decoration and refurbishment. I pay the staff, ragardless of bar-take. You have no God-given right to come to my bar. It is not a hospital or government building that your taxes have contributed to. Why should non-smokers dictate who does what in my premises. Given that tobacco-related taxes amount to almost half of the health service budget, smokers should be treated as heroes not pariahs!!

Richard, Chelmsford,

Over 600,000 people every year die in the UK. There is a handful of vital organs in the body and only so many possible ways that one of them can give up. That there are high levels of heart disease, lung cancer and stroke should surprise nobody, and to call them 'smoking related' is fatuous. Many are simply age related.

It does not take a 60 a day smoker to feel the strain of a ban. The regular users of pubs and clubs, and those who manage them and work in them, are all affected. Air cleaning technologies abound, and are improving daily. Does the government want to drive them out of business too?

Belinda, Edinburgh, UK

It seems quite acceptable these days to say that the health of smokers is not important on society's agenda, so long as non-smokers are free to breathe what they fondly imagine is 'clean air'. Well, smokers hold down jobs, support the national infrastructure and economy and have families to support. I wouldn't mind wagering that many of them work in far more perilous conditions in terms of physical safety and job security. And yet they are the ones who have been deprived of sensible recreational facilities and driven out into the cold.

This is divisive and vindictive legislation, and India Knight is entirely right to seek an alternative.

Belinda, Edinburgh, UK

No-one is denying pubs and restaurants the right to be smoke-free (hurrah!), but CHOICE is the issue here. If there are plenty of non-smoking venues available why does nanny have to always LEGISLATE and make ordinary people criminals for ordinary activities? If you don't want to be with smokers during your leisure time, don't be. No-one ever forced you.

J.C., Devon,

Ms Knight has got it wrong here. The vast majority are very glad smoking is banned. 20 years ago I shared and office when pregnant with a chain smoker before I wanted anyone to know I was pregnant. Nowadays we can go into pubs and it is like a different world - absolutely wonderful to be able to breathe the air and it is absurd to say food and people smell. They are nothing like the effect of smell of smoke. Of course sitting next to Ms Knight her clothes will smell from earlier smoking etc so perhaps we need separate areas in pubs where those who smoke at home can sit.

I was amazed to learn IK smokes. She's clever. She's middle class. She's a mother. She's written a diet book. She lives in the South East. That is not the profile of a smoker.

Now is the time for her to give up the dirty weed and perhaps write a book on how she did it.

Elizabeth, London,

I'm really surprised by this article. I am your typical smoker in that I would like to give up. So I welcome the fact that has become harder to indulge in my guilt inducing, though admittedly enjoyable habit. I also love going outside a restaurant or pub for a smoke and a gossip with a friend. In Dublin where the ban has been in place longer than anywhere in Europe, you'll find very few smokers who want to overturn it. Most smokers prefer to smoke with smokers than non smokers. I can no longer bear the idea of smoking at the table at a dinner party and would never consider asking host for ashtray as I feel uncomfortable blowing smoke in non smokers faces an having to answer questions about how many fags I consume a day. Lighting up in the cool air feels right to me. Please continue to make it difficult for me to smoke and hike up the prices. It may help me to give up one day and has certainly helped me cut down to date.

Ann O'Brien, brussels, belgium

Whi should I inhale your smoke while having a great meal which is actually affected by your disgusting habit? Stop smoking and write a book about it, as you did with your overweight problem.

alexandra, milan, italy

I presume that those lauding the smoking ban are following with equal joy the bureaucratic burblings emanating from our masters in Brussels regarding the dangers of passive drinking.

A Porter, Woking, UK

Emma, "However nasty alcohol and junk food are, they don't diffuse from your own personal space to others'.", just what planet are you from.. You obviously do not have to regularily chase drunks out of your garden who've just popped in to relieve themselves, or replace the wing-mirror on your car after some drunk knocks it off 'just for a laugh', or get woken up at 2 or 3 in the morning by a crowd of raucous drunks wandering down the street singing ot howling at the top of their voices, or pick up the endless cans and chip wrappers that they cant be bothered to stick in the bin so they just shove it into your hedge instead.... It used to be the case that I could go to a non-smoking pub or restaurant and enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere, now, I have to negotiate countless sorry smokers standing in little huddles outside almost ever doorway, pumping their smoke out across the street, I almost always come home reeking of smoke. Ever heard of 'the law of unintended consequences'?

Dave, Worcester,

Well said India.
I'm banned from working in a pleasant but smoky atmosphere yet the people who enacted this legislation are quite happy for me to risk my life every day so they can have a piece of fish on their table. Friends risk their lives volunteering for the local lifeboat or Coastguard rescue.
But despite being the focus of community for over 300 years we can't even relax with a cigarette in our pub.
How many MPs sign early day motions condemning pub/post office/village shop closures and the loss of community but still voted for this smoking ban. - Pubs, clubs, cafes and bingo halls close and remove the sole source of pleasure (and employment) for so many and yet it is claimed to be so popular and a major health success.
This legislation caused social devastation, isolation, vindictive hatred, bankruptcy and the loss of simple pleasure for many smokers and non-smokers - obviously good for social health and happiness a major factor in personal health.
MPs don't think.

ChrisB, Cornwall, UK

Well done, India Knight!
The stupid thing about all this is that pubs and restaurants were beginning to respond to an increasing demand for 'smoke-free' venues anyway, and long before this heavy-handed legislation was deemed necessary. In fact, it had reached the point where it was practically impossible to find a restaurant that allowed smoking at the table. A non-smoking pub (that I could avoid) was doing good trade locally, and country 'gastropubs', which tend to rely on the family pound, were incrementally limiting the amount of space available to smokers. It was only a matter of time before they, too, would have gone 'non-smoking throughout'. And I would have avoided them.
Just as I now avoid all pubs.
I'd sooner sit at home with my cheap booze and fags than undergo "the social equivalent of coitus interruptus". (Great phrase, that!)

Karen Bunn, Retford,

People who smoke tend to die young. This actually saves society money, since otherwise they would live to 80 or 90 collecting a pension, and then die of some equally expensive and unpleasant disease. Just avoiding bad habits will not produce immortality.

Jonathan, NYC, USA

How tiresome will be the anti-smoking lectures that will doubtlessly ensue from readers who might possibly think that some smoker somewhere may have gone to Alton Towers for the day and returned thirty years later with no sensible explanation for their absence and somehow having missed the unceasing, relentless and tireless avalanche of literature, news articles and health warnings that have been issued and circulated on the topic.

Let us accede that it is a most undesirable, unhealthy and potentially lethal habit, but that a wholesale ban of smoking in public places has had, and will continue to have, consequences that may be similarly or equally damaging.

Who knows, perhaps Boris Johnson will get his mojo back and be able to haul our capital, at least, back to the brink of civilisation.

Sue, Felpham,

This article should come with a health warning. The sheer thought of someone lighting up in the middle of a meal has made me feel quite ill.

While I have to admit there is a nanny element out there the majority of us non-smokers don't give a dam about the health of smokers we just want to breathe clean air.

In all the places I have worked in both the UK and Australia smokers represented only about 1% of the work force. Yet I find article are article complaining about smoking bans so I am beginning wounder if nicotine addiction is particularly rampant among journalists.

Ian Davis, Sydney, Australia

The government has gone about this in entirely the wrong way. What they should be doing is encouraging people to smoke as this would vastly increase tax revenues to the treasury. Also, if it's true that smoking knocks twenty years off your life then that's twenty years of not claiming a state pension and living in an old people's home paid for by our children or the state which would save the treasury gigantic sums of money. Thus us smokers would be doing the government and society a favour by paying through the nose for our fags and then popping off early before we become a burden.

nick michael, cardiff, uk

Didn't you write almost exactly the same column not too long ago?
You certainly had a good old rant about the smoking ban.
Anyway, I'll reiterate what I said then. However nasty alcohol and junk food are, they don't diffuse from your own personal space to others'. When you drink a glass of wine, the wine doesn't jump from your glass into your neighbour's mouth. I couldn't care less about smokers' health; as you say it's their own choice, but I'm ecstatic I'm no longer forced to inhale their second-hand smoke. You bang on and on about choices but it was hardly my choice to inhale cigarette smoke every single time I went out prior to the ban.
And the part about being "forced" to light up in front of your children would be laughable if it weren't so unutterably pathetic...

Emma, London,

Tobacco is an addictive drug that kills people in a very unpleasant way. Anything that reduces smoking must be good. Banning smoking in pubs and restaurants means that non-smoking customers and the staff will not have to breathe in the stinking carcinogenic fumes. The term "killjoy" is better applied to the tobacco manufacturers since struggling to keep alive with fouled up lungs does not make for a joyous existence. To say that the ban is because "nanny says it's naughty" is an inane comment, the ban is to stop people dying badly. To say passing smokers near the entrance to a restaurant is like going through "a tunnel of fug" is silly hyperbole. The article seems as if it were written by someone with a 60 a day habit and the strain is showing.

William Garrett, Harrow,