A smoking section in a restaurant is kind of like a peeing section in a pool.

This ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up smoking altogether.

Smoking zones is not the solution by creating smoking zones somewhere we are just motivating smokers.

Scientists agree that smoking is dangerous. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer, strokes and heart disease. Smoking does not just harm the smoker – it also harms people nearby, who breathe in the smoke (this is called “passive smoking”). Smokers choose to smoke, but people nearby do not choose to smoke passively. People should only be exposed to harm if they understand the risks and choose to accept them. A complete ban on smoking in public is needed to protect people from passive smoking.

The opposition is wrong to say that people choose to smoke passively. In many places, there are no non-smoking bars or restaurants. Unless people refuse to go out with friends, they cannot avoid passive smoking. People who work in smoky workplaces (e.g. bars) often do not freely choose this sometimes no other jobs are available. In most countries, safety standards do not allow workers to be exposed to unnecessary danger, even if they agree. Workers should not be exposed to other people’s smoke, since they may not have made a free choice to do so.

A ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up. If smoking was banned in public places, it would no longer be a social activity. Instead, smokers would have to leave their friends inside and go outside to smoke. This would be particularly unpleasant when it is cold/wet. One third of smokers in Scotland said the ban was helping them to cut down. If smoking was a less social activity, fewer people would start smoking. In many countries, governments pay all or some of the cost of treating smoking-related diseases. This means that governments should have a right to discourage smoking.

People will not smoke more at home. Smokers need to maintain a certain level of nicotine in their blood to remain content. A ban on smoking in public would force them to smoke less while at work. Over time, this would lower the level of nicotine they need to feel content. This would reduce how often they need to smoke. They would therefore smoke less at home, as well as less at work.

It is more important to protect people’s health than to protect businesses. Pubs and clubs should adapt, for example by trying to earn more money from selling food.

There have been few problems with bans where they have been introduced. Heavy fines put off companies from allowing people to smoke. A survey for the Scottish Executive found that 99.4% of premises were observing the ban three months after it was introduced.

Only 25% of the stuff goes to the smoker and the rest is left for us. People who have asthma need to carry their inhaler just in case of a smoker or cigarettes.

If you want to classify cigs as a harmful weapon and claim it "the right to bare arms" then i would have to believe everyone that ever smokes in public should be arrested for attempting homicide and for putting others in harms way. We are a county built on equality, why are you taking my right of being cancer free away? We fought for our independence and im glad we have it!

People can ignorantly make the argument that smokers can do what they want - it is their choice to smoke, and their choice to harm themselves.

This is naive. Smoke from cigarettes doesn't just get breathed into one persons lungs and, when breathed out, become safe. That smoke travels all around the space you're in, and everyone around you will be breathing it in, and be effected by it.

Passive smoking is a real problem - the components of cigarette smoke will harm individuals apart from the actual smoker. The gaseous tar will be breathed in, restricting the air ways and clogging the lungs. The carbon monoxide gas will reduce the carrying capacity of others red blood cells, leading to increased blood pressure. The nicotine, in high enough volumes is likely to cause passive smokers to become addicted, without ever smoking a cigarette.

Everyone around you. Everyone in your vicinity. Will be effected by the smoke from your burning cigarette.

You don't get to choose the lifetime of others. Keep your smoke to your homes, or just give up, and prolong your own life - this is one time where you can be selfless, and still help yourself.

Ban it. If you want to smoke then it's your business, but some people don't want to breathe in your fumes.

Smoking should be ban in open spaces because it is not fair on non-smokers to have to be around smokers as it is also dangerous (in fact quite dangerous) for them to be around smokers. Why should they have to risk their health and suffer for something they didn't choose for and in fact chose against as they decided not to kill themselves with smoking?