Extending smoking bans to the outdoors is worthwhile

The guest editorial overlooks the many functions of smoking bans.

First and foremost, of course, is the protection of non-smokers from noxious, toxic second-hand smoke.

But we should also remember that the fewer places people can smoke, the less they smoke, and the more people decide once and for all to quit. That improves everyone's health.

Smoking bans make it very clear to smokers that we don't want to be forced to breathe what they're inhaling because we don't want any of the more than 50 diseases caused by tobacco smoke. And we certainly don't want to die as young as most smokers die.

I, for one, have been forced out of transit shelters and queues by inconsiderate smokers. I have had to move away from smokers on beaches and in parks, only to have another smoker light up next to my new location.

Despite very clear and shocking warnings on cigarette packs, some smokers are still not getting the message.

If you've ever burned your foot on someone's discarded "cigarette" on the beach, you'd support a ban.

Millions of dollars will be saved by preventing the destruction of trees by fires caused every year by discarded cigarettes.

Smoking bans have to include outdoor public places, as well, if we are going to achieve all of the aforementioned objectives. A cigarette is no less deadly when it is being smoked outdoors.