Arguments for and against the smoking ban

Arguments

In favour of a ban	Against a ban
Passive smoking and health Passive smoking by non-smokers has been linked to serious health problems ranging from bronchitis and asthma to lung cancer and heart disease and even SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome).	Alternatives to a legal ban The Voluntary Charter on Smoking in Public Places has, since its beginning in 1998, worked to alter practice in the hospitality industry towards providing smoking and non-smoking areas in, and improving ventilation systems to discharge smoke from, confined public areas. This makes the use of the law to impose a ban unnecessary and heavy handed.
Victims of passive smoking in social and workplace settings Smoking in public places is a health hazard to non-smokers who inhale harmful smoke, unwillingly as passive smokers. This is a health hazard for all, but particularly so for workers in the hospitality industry who spend a great deal of time in smoke filled spaces. They have a right, under existing legislation, to be protected from health hazards at work.	Progress without a legal ban Public services, such as public transport, cinemas, shops, and businesses, have developed no-smoking policies without the need for a legal ban. Pizza Hut recently decided to ban smoking in all its outlets without a legal ban.
Individual freedom Banning smoking in public places is not taking away a group' freedom, it is restoring the freedom of the majority, the freedom to not inhale other peoples' health threatening smoke.	Individual freedom The section of the population that choose to enjoy smoking should not be demonised and marginalised by being threatened with legal bans. The freedom of 13 million adults should be respected and their lifestyle should be afforded a sense of measured tolerance.
Public attitudes There is public support for a ban on smoking in public places.	Public attitudes Surveys have indicated that the population is content with progress towards smoking and non-smoking areas in public places, along with better ventilation systems, rather than favouring a legal ban.
Economic issues Introducing smoking bans makes pubs, bars and restaurants more attractive places and attracts customers and increases business, rather than decreasing it. Introducing a smoking ban will save the country up to �2.7 billion pounds through improvements in health and less demand on National Health Service resources.	Economic issues The banning of smoking in public areas such as pubs, bars and restaurants would have a serious detrimental effect on the businesses and the jobs that depend on them.
Scientific Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemicals, including particles of tar, nicotine and benzene, and in its gas phase, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide. As many as 60 cause, or are suspected as causing cancer and many irritate the respiratory system.	Scientific The toxic nature of environmental tobacco smoke is not significant. Mainstream smoke, inhaled by the smoker, contains nicotine in its particle state. Sidestream smoke, exhaled smoke and smoke from burning cigarette ends sees nicotine changing from particles to vapour. Environmental smoke has nicotine in vapour form that is highly diluted.
Public health Banning smoking in public spaces would also help smokers. It would reduce the amount of cigarettes smoked and encourage smokers to stop smoking. It is in the interest of the people as a whole in that it is promoting the health of the whole nation.