Those freedoms impact on others. It's well known that passive smoking is a major problem[1]. If they want to smoke away from everyone else (and that means ever

Those freedoms impact on others. It's well known that passive smoking is a major problem[1]. If they want to smoke away from everyone else (and that means everyone), fine. If they want to hang out in a group of consensual smokers, then fine. But they don't, they sit around in bars and blow smoke in your face or smoke walking down a street so that you either have to pass them or walk through the smoke. This is leaving alone the impacts on the environment every time one of them flicks a cigarette into a drain, and impacts on healthcare and taxation every time I have to pay for their healthcare (universal healthcare). To be clear, I'm pro universal healthcare. Australia and New Zealand have done a superb job of reducing the amount of tobacco smoke. The difference between going to a bar/cafe in Australia and one in Croatia/Serbia is substantial (not singling them out, I've just visited). I don't know whether this plan will work, and I understand the concerns around personal freedom, I'm just not sure whether protecting the 'rights of smokers' is the right hill to die on. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco...