The smoking ban is an infringement of the rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.
The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that second hand smoke was a danger to those around it, who could possible inhale it. This has never been scientifically proven.
No law should be allowed to go into the statute books without absolute proof that the need for such a law can be substantiated both legally and scientifically.
When the Labour Government first proposed this law, it was in their manifesto that it should be a partial ban, only operational in places that served food. This proposal was suddenly changed to include "all" indoor public places. The reason given, was that staff needed protection from second hand smoke.
In the ex-Labour Government's dying throws, they started suggesting extending the smoking ban to outdoor areas as well as the enclosed areas that were already covered by the ban. If there was any truth at all in their doctrine that second-hand smoke kills or injures, and that is why they needed a smoking ban in the first instance, then why are there proposals still in force to try and extend the ban to outdoor areas?
Smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this. This would not impinge at all on those who do not wish to smoke or even smell smoke, as they too should be allowed their own smoke free places.
Why is this idea important?
The importance of my idea is that is gives equal rights to all, both those who smoke and those who do not.
Equal rights are probably the most important right earned by man, and should be afforded to all, not just a select few.
Smokers are admittedly, a minority in this country, but a very significant minority, approximately 25% of the population, but even if they were just 5% their rights should still be upheld.