A study found that exposure to second-hand smoke increases the risk of heart disease in non-smokers by 30 per cent. Smokers talk about their freedom to smoke, but have they considered the health risk to innocent staff? It is terribly selfish.

A ban would not infringe on the rights of smokers, who would still be able to smoke in open areas. We should only give smokers their freedom on the condition that their activity does not cause harm to others.

Some argue that small businesses may suffer. But smoking costs employers money, as a smoky environment increases the rate of absenteeism among staff and decreases productivity. There is a price to pay, but in the long run a ban would be in everyone's best interest.

Oliver Kwan, 17 Delia School of Canada

I think that banning smoking in bars and restaurants is an infringement on human rights.

As a non-smoker, I like the environment that the smoke-free section of my favourite eatery provides. But I would not try to get rid of the smoking section.

What it all boils down to is the fact that smokers have a right to smoke. Yes, it may bother some, but that's what a democratic society is about: compromise. Under existing laws, restaurants must provide smoking and non-smoking sections. I think that's the perfect solution.

I personally find it offensive that some people choose to eat beef, but who am I to tell people what to do with their lives?

Banning smoking in restaurants would also put restaurant owners in a difficult position. Why should they be forced to deny services to their customers?

I won't argue against the scientific data which proves that smoking causes diseases and ailments. But some people have chosen to indulge in this activity, and we - as a society - need to be tolerant and respect their right to do so.