Smoking was banned in London’s public places on July 1st 2007 because of the alleged health risks associated with passive smoking. Despite some organisations finding no link between passive smoking and cancer at all, the ban went ahead, following in the footsteps of other European cities.

We should be critical of the smoking ban, not only because there is limited evidence that smoking poses any health risks, but because not challenging the ban legitimises the steps that the government has taken in defining social etiquette.

London, like most cities, is a place where people come to escape the intellectually and socially narrow confines of towns and villages, to engage with like-minded individuals and live the way they want to. When the government dictates where we can light up, it stops being a choice that we can make. Rather than individuals mixing with smokers as they see fit, all Londoners must follow the guidelines set out by the government on where and what is appropriate for smokers and non-smokers.

For cab drivers and small business owners who smoke, the ban has had an even more pronounced impact as their private working spaces have become non-smoking premises by law. The decision to smoke or allow others to smoke around them has been taken from them and in to the hands of the government in the workplace as well as the pub.

As rational adults capable of making decisions we should challenge such interference in our private and working lives and argue that the decision to be around smokers is one that we can make ourselves.

The sense of alienation that the anti-smoking legislation has helped to reinforce is perhaps the greatest reason to challenge the ban. Since July 1st many people have been forced to spend their free moments alone, rather than in the company of friends and colleagues who do not share their smoking (or on-smoking) habits. Our opportunity to create social bonds that were once freely made in the pub, bus stop, or on the lunch break, between smoking and non-smoking strangers has been stifled by the official segregation of smokers from non-smokers.

In a city brimming with intelligent and exciting individuals we should oppose the smoking ban for forcing us to socialise with members of our smoking or non-smoking status, rather than with people who we share similar interests.

According to the ‘Campaign for Real Ale’ group 50 pubs a month have closed UK wide since the ban. The London based Laurel Pub Company closed 60 of the 65 pubs it had put on the market because of poor takings since the ban came into action. Similarly, in 2007, 95 pubs from the Yates's, Litten Tree and Hogshead brands went up for sale, following the closure of 30 0ther pubs. The smoking ban has not just impacted the way we use public space, it has left many public spaces, particularly pubs, defunct. The bright lights of London are dimming as people spend more time at home in order to enjoy socialising.

We should oppose the ban in order that London remains a place that we value meeting and socialising in, as opposed to a place that we view as restrictive and boring.

At a time when the words ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ provide the background for most government initiatives, the decision to ban smoking in public places seems somewhat contradictory. What makes our city really valuable is the choice we have in deciding what to observe and recognise as appropriate, what to uphold and how to use our public space. Standing around in half empty bars, it’s not hard to see why we should stand up for our right to suck on a cigarette rather than allow the ban to suck the life out of our city.