I wonder what the evidence/modelling for the proposed ban on smoking in public outdoor spaces is? I'm on the fence - the aim of changing the culture to one where smoking isn't a thing is obviously good. But could it be that something will replace smoking? I have the, admittedly uninformed, impression that all cultures use addictive substances: chewing khat, betel, smoking other substances - though that would be outlawed also presumably, alcohol , and probably more substances I don't know about. Is it human nature to (unfortunately) have a subsection of society who use/misuse substances? Will trying to make the practice less visible and less accepted reduce it or just result in something else replacing it? IYSWIM?
It definitely is undeniable that smoking close to non smokers is at best unpleasant for the non smokers though.
Are the harms of more socially acceptable substances more or less than tobacco smoking? What about alcohol? Does UK have a bigger problem with substance misuse than other countries? I suspect it does with drug misuse - Scotland certainly does - probably with alcohol too.
There's more than one way to skin a cat of course. Improving people's lives generally will presumably encourage less substance abuse.