This morning, Five Live had a phone in titled 'How far should the smoking ban be extended?' Not 'Should the smoking ban be extended?' which is a neutral title, but 'How far...' which indicates a tacit acceptance that it should be extended to some degree.
My view is that it is totally inconsistent to have a partial ban. If smoking is considered so harmful to public health, then why allow it at all? It's either harmful or it isn't. But of course no government is going to ban it completely, partly because of the loss of tax income and partly because it would lose several million votes overnight.
But of course those of us who like to think we have a libertarian streak and would not have banned it at all, also have a consistency problem. If I was a consistent libertarian I would want to legalise soft (or even hard) drugs. But I don't. I guess that makes me a pragmatist rather than an ideologue in this area, which in a debate is always the worst place to be. It's always tough to win a philosophical debate when you have to admit from the start that your argument is inconsistent.