So its finally been passed, with no great surprise.

The smoking ban.

Which is no bad thing, really it isnt. Even as a smoker, I will fully support the measures.

I just wish for once we could see the real agenda of actions such as this.

The politicians who raised it have themselves been quoted as saying that it will protect non-smokers in public places. It will become the 'norm'. But thats not entirely true. If the full reasons for imposing it were that, then why the exemptions to prisons, care homes and barracks? Surely if the agenda is meant to be to 'protect non-smokers from passive smoking' then it should apply there too?

Oh sorry, I forgot, prisoners dont have the ability to go outside. Tough. They are in prison after all. So what about the rights of non-smokers in prison? A bit skewed isnt it.

Same with care homes. Surely if there was a place that really needed it, it would be somewhere housing the frail, ill, sick and old?? Again, so much for the rights of the non-smokers in those communal places to be 'protected'.

I hate the way that the reasoning for these things is distorted to state that its 'for the benefit of the public', 'moral duty' etc. It isnt. Its purely done to improve the public image of the politicians and future voting, not through any deep seated ethical or moral judgements.

The arguments never quite stack up either, to the reasons we are given.

One oft-quoted reason is the drain on resources and expense to the NHS. The cost to the NHS is only approximately £1.5 billion. Only I hear you say? Yes, only. When compared to the fact that the government rakes in over £8 billion a year from taxes on sales, then its a no-win argument. What happens to the other £6.5 billion. And none of that includes VAT either.

If the ban is to be imposed for the reasons quoted, then the figures dont add up - the exclusions and costs I mentioned.

As Ive posted before, if it truly was for ethical, health, or public interest reasons, they have the capacity to ban the sale and production, instead of using lame smoke-screens such as those they have used.

Its an easy target and easy vote winner.

I dont mind the ban, I just dont like the hypocrisy involved.

Where are all the arguments about smog, factory smoke, car and vehicle pollutions which surely affect the health of the public?

Could I possibly counter the governments arguments, stating that by allowing so many vehicles on the roads, they are harming the health of the public with increased exposure to more and more fumes?

Theres also the effects of stress and tension it causes by ever more delays in travel times due to congestions etc. And also the lack of exercise it encourages will undoubtedly also add to heart disease.

Flippant, perhaps, but not altogether untrue.

Just be honest, and dont feed us with pandering pleas to cloud out the truth. Then Ill be happy.

For once, treat the root cause of the issue. The same applies to the glossing over of measures to help global warming, waste and energy-saving issues.

One last thing, I also read that apparently the Commons Bar is exempt from this ban.....enough said.