Surely every persons rights are equal and each persons 'right' effects another persons 'right' how do we establish who's rights should take precedence?
The first thing to realise is that your RIGHTS affect every body elses RIGHTS and this is surely the first essential to a 'bill of rights' or indeed laws governing 'rights'
Your right to be in a smoke free environment eradicates my right to smoke, who's right is more important?
your right to breath fresh un-poluted air is superceeded by right to drive a car which polutes the air far more and far more dangerously than tens of thousands of smokers in the same space?
My point is that some issues could be easily resolved, as in the first example, but others as in the second example are, and will be governed by the economy.
The answer to these problems is far too simple for politicians to see it is called common sense. If a landlord wishes to have smokers in his pub and some don't like being in that situation then common sense requires they go elsewhere. There would be fewer non smoking pubs so they would do more business and the seven pubs closing every day would be a thing of the past, or indeed common sense tells me that the no smoking pubs would close down because of a lack of trade.
As an after thought if you want to ban things that are bad for your health causing death and vast expense for the health service, start banning 'mobile phones' proven radiation, cars 5,000 deaths and 100s of thousands of injuries per year, fast food causing obesity, and if that is unproven then it is still correct to say the nutritional value of a brick…… Just a thought