i support both.and all i can say is that both sides need to think of the other. its not that hard if a smoker can try to avoid non smokers while puffing and non smokers can just stop fussing up whenever they walk pass a smoker.

I don't agree with the complete banishment of something that is legal. People have the right to take care of their body the way they want, so long nobody else's right is compromised. That said, the government needs to determine in what conditions can smokers be in public places, be it glass isolated rooms or whatever is proved not to harm everyone elses health.

However, one important thing to ask is: won't the establishment employees be obligated to attend the smokers' spot? Shouldn't we care about them just as well?

The proof that it is not that easy to impose a ban over so many people. Smoking was banned in Greece in public places, including bars a couple of months ago, but now the Greeks have their smoking bar revolt (a.k.a. the ashtray revolt). Bar owners excuse themselves with the economic crisis. There will always be something.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ggRfoHo2hP5aCeMLatVX3lvwHnGQ?docId=CNG.dea213512b6562c3215cbe3d699457da.101

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev, My bad, I didn't follow.

Just to be clear, I don't support a ban. I was just wondering whether anyone supports a ban.

@pichurka, I think that was exactly what @Valentin_Ivanov suggested. He suggested total ban on production and sale. If those activities are banned I don't see how smoking would be legal.

@Valentin_Ivanov, The alcohol prohibition in the United States from 1920 to 1933 did not bring the expected results, but rather stimulated the development of organized crime, i.e. the mafia. I expect similar outcome from a total tobacco ban.

@Valentin_Ivanov, I can't support any such thing.

Who here will support a total ban on production and sale of cigarettes and related products?

@Iliyan_Iliev, I don't think that having a smoking and non-smoking sections in bars and restaurants is a good idea, because this can potentially lead to corruption. "Good" ventilation is also rather subjective. The regulatory control should not be tempted to be corrupted especially in couturiers with not very well developer civil societies.

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev, In my opinion smoking should be allowed in indoor public places only if they have separate rooms for smokers assuring good ventilation. It is harder to say about open space smoking - it is a good idea to have a smoking section in a stadium, open air snackbar or bus stop that is some distance away from the places for non-smokers. Anyway, if the regulatory control is loose, all restrictions are somewhat pointless and the decision whether to smoke or not in a certain place comes up to ethics.

@pichurka, I must agree with you on this. The type of places where smokers will be allowed to smoke and where smoking will be banned should be determined carefully. You are right about stadiums because people usually have a fixed seat and if someone next to you is smoking you can do nothing about it if there are no other free seats around.
On the other hand at a bus stop you can easily walk away a couple of meters from a smoker.
Anyway my point was that smoking should not be banned in ALL public places just because they are public because such a ban would not be adhered. Smokers should be given space to take a puff, and non-smokers should be given space to escape to non-smoking environment easily when needed.

@pichurka, It seems I didn't make myself clear. I don't say that bar owners should decide whether their places should be smokers or non-smokers. Smoking must be banned in all indoors places (including bars), but allowed in open-space places (stadiums, bus stops, in the street, etc). This way it will be much easier to adhere to the indoors place ban, because when a smoker in a bar wants to smoke, they will just get outside and have a puff. But if it is not allowed even in the street, the smoker will probably hide in the restrooms to smoke.
I agree that even smoking outside can do harm to non-smokers (and other smokers) around but I am willing to make this compromise in order for the indoor ban to take real effect.

I think we should be realistic here. A total ban is probably the best for the health of everyone but I doubt that if such a ban goes into effect, it is going to be strictly adhered to. You just can't put a limitation to such a large portion of the population. We agree that killing is an offence and we should prosecute murder easily because only 1 in 10 000 is a killer, but when 1 out of 3 wants to smoke in public things don't stand the same way. Even 1 of 3 officers who should watch for the ban adherence would be a smoker.
So I still stick to my previous opinion that we should go with the possible and the ban should be for open places only.

I am torn.

From one point of view - Restaurants, Bars, etc. are privately run businesses and it should be up to the owners to determine whether smoking should be allowed in his/her private property.

From another point of view - without a ban, an overwhelming majority of owners will not ban smoking in their establishments, because they fear that smokers will simply migrate to another smoke-friendly establishment. And smokers form a significant part of bar-goers. So non-smokers are inconvenienced.

At the end, however, I vote for banning. The reason is: with a ban smokers a little inconvenienced -- they have to simply go outside and smoke. Without a ban - non-smokers are greatly inconvenienced -- they have to go to another bar or stay outside/at home.

The sacrifice for smokers is much smaller than for non-smokers.

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev Bus stops and stadiums sometimes feel even tighter than bars and restaurants. Smoke goes directly into the noses of innocent citizens. Ban it altogether! Down with the tobacco!

I believe that the ban should be total for indoors public places, such as restaurants, bars and offices but smoking should be allowed at open-space public places such as bus stops, stadiums, etc.