The government looks set to scrap plans for a partial ban of smoking in public places and workplaces, as cabinet ministers begin to push for a total ban.

This would mean no smoking in all public places, bars, restaurants, clubs etc.

How do you feel about these impending laws?

Are they restricting our individual free will, or protecting the public?

Whilst most prefer to pay no attention to the massive debate going on behind Parliament's doors, and the huge campaigns for and against the ban, millions and millions of us will die this year from smoking-related diseases.

As the evidence mounts against smoking, countries worldwide are starting to sit up and take note of the devastating effects of cigarette smoke.

Ireland was the first country in the world to introduce a nationwide ban in March 2004, with Scotland hot on its heels.

England was set to impose a ban on all enclosed public places and workplaces, with exception of those not serving food, by the end of 2008.

But is this enough?

Britain's largest pub company (Mitchells & Butlers) has called upon the government to impose an outright ban on smoking in public places, instead of this flimsy suggestion.

What does this suggest to us?

Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt has reportedly started pushing for a complete ban, with Tony Blair saying if the cabinet are in agreement, he will not stand in the way.

Now the cabinet ministers are getting behind this idea, a total ban of smoking in public places looks on the cards.

As the decision on these new laws come ever nearer, what does the local smoker think of the proposal? General opinion seems to be negative, while smokers seem to concede on a 'no smoking' area, and a 'no smoking at the bar' policy - a total ban is seen to be almost an infringement on human rights.

Experts have predicted that in order to evade the partial ban, many pubs would have closed their kitchens and refused to serve food - in order to let punters carry on smoking.

So is the total ban a step in the right direction?

As recent research shows, the long list of smoking-related diseases (the most well known and biggest killers being heart disease and cancer), is actually applicable to passive smokers as well.

This means, every time you go for a drink in your local pub; or go for as meal in your local Italian; or wander round town for the afternoon shopping; - you are passively smoking.

There is no escape from cigarette smoke, it invades our air and our space and where there are smokers in public places, there are innocent people passively smoking.

These are the types of places the government are hoping to make smoke free.

Why should members of the public have to put up with this health risk? Why should workers also have to put up with this health risk?

These days you can sue the company you work for if you feel your chair is too uncomfortable, or your computer monitor is too bright - how do bar workers or waiting staff feel having to consume poisonous cigarette smoke for hours on end?

And however, as the pro-smoking group FOREST clearly highlighted on their web site:

To ban smoking is to ban freedom of choice.

Consider this: How can we ban smoking when alcohol is still legal?

Alcohol is also a major killer, and is still perfectly legal; in fact we have just relaxed the licensing laws in order to give people more hours in the day to consume alcohol.

Should we then look at banning alcohol? Where do these enforced restrictions end?

Surely a smoker has the right to smoking when he / she pleases. Smokers countrywide are feeling singled out, punished and victimised.

Why pick this bad habit to ban among all our many vices?

Why not ban alcohol to help alcoholics?

Why not ban fast food to help the obese?

Why not better policing against drugs?

Yes, we must concede people should have the freedom of choice, if they wish to participate in the smoking of cigarettes, then it is nobody's business to stop them.

But how can we concede that it is their right to pollute everyone else's air space with these toxic fumes?

Alcoholism does not pollute the air around us, and it does not give us passive liver disease - smoking is killing innocent non-smokers all the time.

People who have never picked a cigarette up in their life may contract lung cancer or heart disease, both of which are directly linked to smoking.

All they may have done is spend time in restaurants, bars or clubs having fun.

Yes, alcoholics and addicts have a problem, but we need to start realising that smoking is a problem as well.

This is also an addictive drug with many harmful and fatal side affects.

People need help, they need to give up, and surely a step towards this will be that elimination of smoking in public places?

Spending more money on anti-smoking campaigns, and making treatment cheaper and more accessible to smokers?

These people cannot want to die young from smoking. And yet it is still a massive problem worldwide.

Should we then say smoking is an individual's choice, but in private? While other filthy habits are not condoned in public, why should this one be?

Unfortunately smokers are unable to avoid polluting our air.

Short of smoking into a ventilator, they will always pollute bars, restaurants and clubs alike.

These impending laws must then be a step towards a cleaner future, a step towards reducing the amount of smoking-related deaths, and step towards better working conditions.

Surely this can only be the right step?

Updated: 11:37 Thursday, October 20, 2005