IN proposing to outlaw smoking in the vast majority of enclosed public places, the Government risks being accused of running a "nanny state".

However, opposition to the ban on civil liberty grounds is flawed.

It is a fallacy that tobacco only harms the smoker. It is beyond dispute that passive smoking is a danger to health. The law should go some way to protect those who suffer harm from the actions of others.

It is beyond dispute that smoking causes an excessive burden on the health service.

And it is beyond dispute that the ill-health endured by a smoker has a potential impact on their wife, husband or children.

To suggest, therefore, that only smokers are at risk from smoking is preposterous.

Of course, the Government has to strike the best possible balance between the right to freedom of choice and the right to protect others.

But overall, the Government has a duty of care to the general population, which overrides the rights of smokers, who are in the minority.

And because smoking causes health problems, it is right that legislation is drawn up to reflect the damage it inflicts on individuals and the community at large.

If this legislation persuades people to give up smoking or discourages young people from taking up the habit in the first place, then its impingement on individual liberty is justified.

In the Commons yesterday, the Health Secretary made a powerful case for a tough stance against smoking.

Indeed, it was such a powerful case that the logic of sparing some pubs from a smoking ban will escape many people.