The question is - does the UK population need to be 'nannied' by the Government or not? The fact is loads of people die each year from falling - do we ban walking? What about choking - do we ban eating? The fact we live in a democracy is being rammed down our throats on a daily basis - shouldn't we be allowed to make our own individual choices?

The term 'Sustainable Development'  was defined by the World Commission on Environment & Development (The Brundtland Report) in 1987 as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Regardless of whether it is 'right or wrong' to smoke, the fact is that people do smoke, drink and take drugs - we have been for years and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.  We need to meet the needs of the present - what would happen if we didn't?

The last element of our 'constructive criticism' of the passive smoking debate involves cars and road transport. Is it coincidental that respiratory illness such as asthma in children is at an all time high? Why should the millions of people who choose to walk or cycle, who don't contribute to the problems of pollution and congestion in our towns and cities, be subjected to a myriad of noxious emissions spewing from the tens of millions of exhaust pipes, rattling around the UK each day?

If you are going to ban smoking in the workplace based on health risks then surely the same should apply to car use for non essential journeys (but how do you define essential)? The arguments put forward by non-smokers are credible and valid - Do you think any of them drive? Why on earth should people have to breathe in other people's smoke? Even more so, why on earth should people have to breathe other people's car exhaust fumes - made up of highly noxious substances such as benzene and carbon monoxide!

You have to address the wider issue - otherwise the whole topic of sustainable development and the creation of sustainable communities becomes inconsistent and a waste of everybody's time & money. The old(ish) adage "Think Global, Act Local" is as true as ever - yet still not implemented. This makes achieving positive change more difficult for us mere mortals than it has to be.

Whilst smoking is legal in the UK, people have the right to smoke - even despite of the obvious health dangers and negative environmental consequences. However at the same time, people should have the right not to be exposed other peoples smoke or pollution.

We believe passive smoking should be the least of the anti-smoking movement's worries. They, if they thought about it hard enough, should turn their attentions to the pollution coming from road vehicles, our homes, industry and military exercises that are killing an incalculable number of people each year (although, we confidently estimate 'far more' than passive smoking).

Imagine one day in the future -  smokers, jokers and midnight tokers could build bridges and unite together; to demand the right to clean and healthy air indoors, because we certainly don't have a clean supply outside! All we are certain about is that the Government and it's policies have been making us sick - literally. And criminalising smoking in public places, restaurants and bars is not going to solve respiratory illnesses - it will take much more effort than the ban.

If the Government wants to discourage smoking, maybe they should broaden their argument to include problems not only on the local environmental level in terms of litter and pollution, but on the global level in terms of deforestation, soil erosion and exploitation of the poorest people from the poorest countries.

CONGRATULATIONS? For the first time in the modern world we have reached a perfect, equal balance. Whilst one half starves, the other half is dying from diseases of excessive consumption. "Some 1.2 billion people in the world still have too little to eat; the same number today, suffer from being overweight."  (Lawrence, 2004**). A shameful fact.

Subsistence farming is forsaken for cash crops  -  land used for cash crops such as tobacco, is leached of nutrients leading to soil erosion and eventually, possible desertification - which ultimately leads to a reduction in the biodiversity of our planet - and for what? To increase the value of the stakeholders shares.

For anyone interested in the wider, impacts of tobacco consumption, 'The Tobacco Atlas' (World Health Organization 2002) is available online. It provides a factual insight into the tobacco industry, and provides a much wider view of the global impacts associated with smoking and the manufacture of tobacco products. Whining about passive smoking seems almost laughable in comparison. What do you think?  Let us know your opinion, click here to contact us.