It's astonishing that it's not smokers whose health is more at risk but it's passive smokers who are more prone to risk. Both categories are prone to risk of getting lungs cancer and diseases related to heart.
Gravity of problem is serious and all steps taken have proven futile to erase problem of smoking 100 percent. Given fact that you cannot force anyone to stop smoking is major hurdle which hasn't been overcome.
Forcing directly means snatching away their fundamental right.
We should take consequences to economy in consideration if smoking get banned totally. First it will affect revenue that government earn in form of taxes and duties imposed on sales of tobacco. Secondly, at minor level it will affect paper industry and hundreds of vendors selling cigarettes will loose earnings. Contradictory to it if government gain money in form of taxes they are imposing on sales of tobacco it could be utilise to improvise health services while slashing cost of such services. In my opinion government should hike the tax resulting in an increase in price of cigarettes. This in turn will discourage people to consume less cigarettes.
Policing all vendors is almost near to impossible as police cannot deploy extra force to see ban being observed by vendors and consumers. Making stringent laws doesn't mean that you can stop people smoking at public places. Rather they will find covert ways to continue with the habit.
We agree that smoking should be banned but at the same time we need to ensure that individual shouldn't be deprived of their fundamental rights. Celebrity endorsement, ban on public places, encouragement to quit can minimise the problem but cannot erase the problem completely.