nutty - smokers constantly sidestep the issue which is at the heart of the ban.

If I drink myself into oblivion every day, the only person whose health and well-being I'm adversely affecting is me. If a girl shags around and gets cervical cancer, the only person whose health and well-being she's adversely affecting is her. If I live on McDonalds, clog up my arteries with cholesterol and have a heart attack, the only person whose health and well-being is adversely affected is me.

But (and it's a huge 'but'), if you smoke in a room full of people, not only are you affecting your own health and well-being, you're affecting everyone else's in the room. That's it - the reason for the ban - not to prevent smoking, but to prevent non-smokers from being forced to smoke, FFS!

I, and very many others, choose not to smoke. If you smoke in my presence you're forcing me to smoke, despite my choice not to. Why is it so difficult to understand that other people's health and well-being have to take priority over the 'right' that smokers perceive as theirs to smoke anywhere and everywhere?

FWIW, I'm in agreement with you about road traffic. But, whereas the blight of inconsiderate smokers was easy to fix, the road traffic question is infinitely more difficult and will take a long time to solve (if, indeed, it ever is).