Passive smoking is a significant and for a long time neglected public health issue. Whenever someone smokes in an enclosed space which may be occuppied by another person they induce that person to smoke passively. Smoke may linger for long periods after a smoker has left. Of course if a person chooses to smoke and does not impose this form of behaviour there is no problem and it is a different issue altogether.

It is well known that smoking during pregnancy leads to a lower birthrate and a higher incidence of SIDS. After birth, moderate smoking by the mother coincides with double the rate of SIDS while heavy smoking leads to up to 5 times the rate.

What is not so well known is that mothers who don't smoke, but have partners who do, have babies with lower birth weights and probably higher rates of SIDS sa well.

It is well established that passive smoking is a significant health hazard. Nonsmokers sometimes die from lung cancer from passive smoking (I know of someone.) They also have a greater risk of premature heart disease. Even small doses of nicotine increase the resting pulse rate and blood pressure (2 factors negatively correlated with life expectancy). I am sure there is plenty of information available of the physiological effects of smoking and the toxins (and insecticides etc.) in tobacco smoke.

Sidestream smoke , the sort that forms when a cigarette is left burning in an ashtray or held by a person, contains 2 or more times the amount of poison and carcinogens than the smoke that is inhaled. Rooms filled with cigarette smoke are particuarly dangerous. Nonsmokers smoke the equivalent of several cigarettes an hour when they are in a smoke filled room. Keep in mind the huge volume of air a person inhales over several hours. One of the most insidious effects is the creation of large amounts of colourless odourless carbon monoxide, the gas that starves your blood of oxygen and leaves you with a headache without you knowing why.

More important than the longterm damage of passive smoking, is that it makes people feel plain miserable. Its not much fun having clothing, hair and breath smelling of smoke when you are a nonsmoker. Of course the only true nonsmoker is the one that doesn't smoke passively. Shame, smokers, shame.

For decades the myth that smoke can't hurt you unless you have a cigarette in your mouth has survived. This is magical thinking in the extreme, perhaps designed to avoid hurting the feelings of smokers. Smoking is highly addictive, its true, but why perpetuate this nonsense.

Many smokers have very little awareness of how their habit affects others. Discouraging or banning smoking in public helps to increase the awareness of this. Some smokers actively welcome restrictions on public smoking and just becauses a person smokes doesn't mean they enjoy being in smoke filled rooms.

Since the 1980s a strange thing has happened in the state of Victoria, Australia. Smoking has been removed from most public places, something not done in many countries. A lot of people feel a lot better. The state government banned smoking in all public transport. A single union, Australia Post, voted to ban smoking from the workplace. The State Public Service was next to go, and from then on smoking was antisocial, and there was a landslide. Rare to find workplaces where people smoke, even if a private company is involved.

For overseas readers, Australia has banned overt tobacco advertising for several decades. The main current issue is the "sneaky" advertising via sponsorship of sporting events, though I doubt many sucessful sports people would have their performance enhanced by smoking.

With smoking in public discouraged, rates of smoking tend to fall. Social pressure is on the smoker, not on the nonsmoker. Many people find its too much hassle and humiliation, to have to wait for the afternoon or morning break to sneak out and have a smoko.

The nonsmoker who is not subjected to the foul smoke starts feeling a lot better from day to day. For many nonsmokers, smoke is one of the most annoying things in their day to day living.

There are other benefits to the community with reduced smoking rates. Unfortunately governments sometimes get addicted to revenues from cigarette sales, while overlooking the extra burden on the public and private systems, lost working days, increased accidents due to loss of concentration etc.

Although I can't prove it, I have a hunch that prople predisposed to crime and other antisocial behaviour are more likely to smoke. People caught up in the psychiatric system are much more likely to be smokers. Having going into it in depth, taking a drug that reduces oxygen and blood flow to the brain might not help.

Ideally smoking is to be discouraged in all indoor or enclosed public spaces, except special areas set aside for smokers. It is important that smoke from the set aside areas can't "waft" into the nonsmoking areas. Ventilation may help, but its not enough. Smoke permeates evenly in an enclosed space.

I remember when nonsmoking areas were first introduced on aircraft. First, 3 rows were smoking then 3 smoking, smoke moved to the nonsmokers, so they made the side aisles smoking and the middle aisle nonsmoking. Next they made the back half of the plane nonsmoking and the front half smoking. Finally, after many years, they came up with the better solution: scrap smoking altogether on aircraft.

Priority should be given to areas where persons are not able to leave easily or are immobile e.g. aircraft or lifts.

Spaces included would be all public transport, all indoor workplaces, especially offices, cinemas and other recreational places, shops, restaurants, etc. etc. In some countries the inane practice of smokers being allowed to smoke anywhere persists.

Children are particuarly vulnerable. 20 years I once visited a creche filled with cigarette smoke. This is disgraceful.

I hope readers find this useful and that it adds to the growing groundswell against smoking imposed on others.