When people concerned with individual liberty complain about what seems to be some minor encroachment on their lives, they are ridiculed. When they explain that there are important principles involved, and that the degree isn't as important as the precedent, they are ridiculed.

Gun owners say that restrictions on guns will lead to confiscation. Motorists say that seat belt laws will lead to worse restrictions. Bikers say that helmet laws will eventually lead to motorcycles being outlawed. Smokers say that laws keeping them from smoking in bars will eventually lead to outlawing cigarettes.

See? You're ridiculing already.

Check this out.

Dr Astrid James, deputy editor of the Lancet, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that smoking created a "public health burden", killing 120,000 in the UK and 4.2m worldwide every year.

Note how they tie it in to the "public health burden." You see, in England, it IS a "public" health burden, so this argument becomes legitimate.

Dr James said the government had already shown it was willing to pass similar legislation, such as banning the use of hand held mobile phones while driving. She said: "That was in the face of 20 deaths over five years."

Note how the precedents are set. See? If banning cell phones is legitimate, or passing helmet laws, or any of dozens of other encroachments on your personal liberty, why not this?

Forest director Simon Clark said the Lancet was "the true voice of the rabid anti-smoking zealot". He said smokers should not be treated as criminals, adding: "The health fascists are on the march.

"What next? Will they urge the government to ban fatty foods and dairy products?"

You think that's funny, don't you?