Yippee! No more smokey pubs

That said - yippee! The ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces comes into force in England on Sunday. And no, I don't see anything hypocritical or inconsistent in these two statements.

I am not a smoker. Not even an ex- smoker. I have never had a cigarette in my mouth in my life.

In my opinion, tobacco is a disgusting substance in all its forms. Its use creates a foul stench which permeates everything it or its emissions come into contact with. Cigarette smoke taints and discolours paintwork, furnishings, clothes, even eating utensils, not to mention hair, fingers and teeth. And, of course, the effects on the health of smokers, both active and passive, are well documented.

I am not against smoking as an activity; I just don't want to do it myself.

I strongly believe that what people do is very much their own business, as long as their choices do not adversely affect others.

If you really want to smell like an old ashtray, are happy to part with large amounts of hard-earned cash and risk a plethora of painful and terminal diseases to achieve this dubious goal, then fine, no skin off my nose - that is, and should remain, your choice by right, as long as I don't have to join in.

Most smokers these days are quite considerate of those around them, but they cannot control their noxious fumes and in enclosed public places those who choose not to smoke are effectively forced to endure the unpleasant effects listed above.

So smoking in public means that no-one is free not to smoke, which is why I think this ban is long overdue.

"Ah," say the smokers, "but banning smoking in public places denies us our right to choose and non-smokers have always had the option not to go into places like pubs if they don't like the smoky atmosphere."

True, but my choice not to smoke harms no-one, whereas the harm caused by smoking is significant and indiscriminate.

Where opposing rights mutually interfere with each other, then the harm principle is the only fair arbiter - the option that causes most harm must be the option to be curtailed. If the ban detracts from their pleasure, smokers will still have the choice not to enter premises where smoking is not allowed, they will also be free to go outside if they wish to smoke.

In the past, anyone with the temerity to criticise smokers for polluting the atmosphere were labelled killjoys and fascists, despite being the injured party. At last the wheel has turned and the rights of those who just want to breathe clean air are to be considered.

Of course, the ban goes much further than simply prohibiting lighting up in places like pubs, clubs and shops. The ban is on all enclosed public spaces, particularly places of work and to me, this is the real point of the new law.

If we accept that smoking emissions are harmful then it is proper to protect workers from exposure to such emissions in their work place.

If we were talking about similar carcinogenic fumes from an industrial process, there would be no argument from anyone. The fact that the fumes originate from the leisure activities of part of the work force is no reason for non-participants to accept them without protest. Having worked as a barman in my youth, I well remember the stinging eyes, persistent coughs and headaches brought on by working in a smoke-filled atmosphere.

I suspect that there will be many in the entertainments and hospitality industry who will welcome the change. Removing such an unpleasant and potentially harmful hazard from all work places has got to be a positive move.

I wonder if smokers have considered the full implications of this. If you employ someone to carry out services in your home - plumbing for example - then for the duration of the work your home becomes a work place. It is the responsibility of whoever controls the work place not to allow smoking.

In theory, when such work is in progress, householders could be fined for smoking inside their own homes. DIY looks set for a revival.