Freedom: The big and small of it

Readers will certainly recall one news item that not just made heads turn, but also cigarette-laden jaws drop. This was the one pertaining to the ban on smoking in public places. Suddenly one could see No-Smoking boards put up overnight in malls, restaurants, pubs, office places, and every other place that could be called public. The 24-hour news channels got another heated topic to debate about endlessly. Some newspapers published debates on the issue with views, counterviews, overviews, underviews, sideviews. One particular interview with a celebrity caught my attention. This person, while upholding the rule, also said he was big on personal freedom, and hence averred that any rule interferring with one's personal freedom shouldn't be enforced. This comment really seemed strange to me. If it is a matter of personal freedom for a person to smoke, then it's personal freedom for a nonsmoker to breathe tobacco-free air. Can it still qualify to be called personal freedom if it interferes with others personal freedom? And what about public freedom (if something like that exists in the first place)? Which is bigger and which is smaller? But one thing's for sure. Like many other rules, this one too is going up in smoke. Not just anywhere, but right behind the Union Health Minister's back. There was a TV clipping showing people smoking away to glory in the corridors of the Parliament. Isn't that exercising personal freedom in a public place? Now, what was I babelling about all this while?