I don't want to get into a big side debate about whether they'll ban cars or not, I merely used it a better example then comparing cigarettes to burgers. Whether they'll ban cars in the future or not is hard to tell, as you said some people feel they need them to get around. However I'll bet alot of the places you go to can be reached easily via others means, like the train, cycling, buses or walking. Back to the smoking ban at Ewood though. Alot of people have been mentioning democracy, that the rights of the non-smokers have to be upheld as their way of life is healthy, and the actions of smokers threaten to ruin that health. I agree with that completely. However if we wanted to be truly democratic it would make sense to simply have a smokers area, so that everyone is appeased.

I don't think a burger example is a very good way of explaining the argument. I can see that people don't want bodily harm inflicted on them in any way, quite rightly so too. Second hand smoke annoys people, makes them smell, and in some cases can be attributed as a cause of cancer. However it is the invasion people feel the goverment are causing that makes people upset. It's the wedge theory that while they are banning smoking, what is stop them banning other things, and where will the line stop? Thinking that the goverment won't ban cars isn't unreasonable now they have banned smoking. Afterall I don't drive, and I don't see why I should be subjected to dangerous drivers, acid rain, urban smog, respiratory problems, lung cancer, greenhouse effect, the consumption of irreplaceable fossil fuels, pollution and bad air. Much like smoking used to be though, cars are a vital part of the economy. However as smoking has been phased out, become unpopular, and has been eventually banned so might cars. Afterall there have already been measures put in place to reduce the pollution made by cars, the congestion cars create, and limit the amount of fossil fuels we consume through cars. There's the Clean Air Act, the congestion charge, ideas like car pooling, the encouragment to use public transport or walk or cycle. Even at a recent meeting at Downing Street the ministers opted to walk there rather then drive to display their attitudes towards it. Everyone has known smoking is bad for them for years. Even before it wasn't proved, when people who smoked were coughing up tar they had a clue what caused it. Everyone knows cars are bad for the environment, and while they may be nifty to pick the kids up in, or pop up the road for shopping with, people know they are causing problems either for our generation or the next. Like smoking, just because everyone seems to drive doesn't make it cool. Like smoking, the cost of driving is rising, and will keep rising untill it is viewed as too expensive. Like smoking, if more and more people quit it then those who are left will be viewed as causing unneccesary damages to those around them and banned. Then people will back to the smoker vs non-smoker argument we're in now. Some will say it's good no-one is allowed to drive anymore. Other's will say why not ban planes, as they cause more pollution then cars, and why stop there and ban all emission creating devices to send us back into the medieval age. The weird thing is though, is that unless we know where the goverment will stop there's no telling what will happen. As we're not yet in the medieval age, and there are worse things to worry about (like cars), why not give people the freedom of choice and have a smoker area and non-smoker area. I'm sure the nicotine will help ease the stress, and if smokers smoke around other smokers they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. Banning it will only drive a few people away. (just to note, I don't smoke.)

I think we should force everyone who doesn't smoke to smoke. That way smoking won't bother them. You can't deny the logic.