DESPITE all the hoo-ha surrounding the banning of cigarettes from pubs - yes, the Man may have called it banning smoke but that's the same logic as saying that speed cameras are in fact safety cameras - you rarely heard anyone on Team Fag's side saying: "You know what, it's great being addicted to smoking. I love it."

I may be a non-smoker, but I'm fairly sure about this one. Smokers may go on about how a snout complements whisky, wine, coffee or sex just perfectly but I'm yet to meet one who is happy that they feel the need to smoke at inopportune moments through the day.

The experience of tobacco may well be great - though in my experience it's like licking a burning wasp from a composted nettle, with added chemicals - but the impetus to smoke at regular intervals regardless of location certainly isn't.

That's why those people who may treat themselves to just three tabs on a Friday night are in a much better position than those who can't stop even if they want to - it's about whether you're wagging the tail or the tail is wagging you.

By the same token, that's why I've always taken against cigarettes. It's because they are addictive, and it's an unusual person who can get into smoking 10 a day and suddenly give up.

Alcohol is also addictive, but the reasons for that are more social and less chemical, so there is a greater element of choice for the individual.

With that background, is anyone else amazed that when the law changes and makes the legal age for buying cigarettes 18 - which is a good move - there will be no penalties for over-18s buying snouts and handing them to kids outside the shop?

Is it just me, or is the change in the rules supposed to designate that cigarettes should be for adults (as by definition they are better placed to make judgments about the pros and cons of smoking) rather than under-18s?

However, a letter from Labour Health Minister Dawn Primarolo said: "Alcohol is a unique product in that its sale to people below the minimum age can give rise to social disorder.

"Tobacco has serious long-term health effects but does not give rise to similar problems. Proxy purchasing of other age-restricted products such as knives and fireworks is not a criminal offence."

Now, there are several things in there that make me furious, and this list is by no means exhaustive.

Firstly, the inappropriate sale of alcohol to any age, not just the under-18s, can cause social disorder.

Secondly, why is "social disorder" as a problem seemingly more of a priority than "serious long-term health effects", and why are they even compared?

Thirdly, why is it okay to buy knives and fireworks for the under-18s? Don't they cause a demonstrable amount of social disorder?

The most annoying thing is that here is an opportunity missed. I think it's great that the Labour Government has pushed through the smoking ban in pubs - in this case the "freedom from" principle should outweigh the "freedom to" side of the argument - and also followed it through with this law change.

But why not go the whole hog and say what they are actually thinking, which in this case is along the lines of Smoking Is A Bad Thing?

That's what the legislation clearly intends to imply and, to my mind, rightly so.

Going back to the earlier point, cigarettes are bad because they can lead to addiction.

Addiction is terrible because it leads to the person not being themself - it's a form of illness, as has been heart-rendingly described to the Adver this week by the members of the Time For Us group of relatives of drug addicts.

While being hooked on fags is nowhere near as serious as being the victim of a heroin or crack habit, the principle remains the same.

Addictions are an illness - they are unhealthy, and they de-humanise. If we're going to have new laws against addictive substances, why not do it properly?