well, to be fair, they aren't really trying to be Health Nazis, if that were the case they would outlaw it altogether within city limits. I'm guessing its more of trying to defend the rights of non-smokers in public places.

Just imagine if the same percentage of people who smoked went around in public wearing the ficticious perfume "eau du fart," would you be terribly pleased about that? especially if you found out it can cause cancer to someone who smells it if they are exposed too often?

View it this way: you start off with your whole body when you are born. But you begin to notice over time that bits of it keep getting removed by others who say they are acting out of your interests. Just replace "body" with "freedom" and you'll understand my point. It isn't their choice to decide who smokes and where...it's the choice of the individual.

Your example seems to sidestep the obvious responses: why not just go somewhere else? When people engage in unpleasant behavior, you either ask them to stop or you move somewhere else. If they disagree, you don't forcibly stop them unless they are on YOUR property.

It is health fascism, regardless of to what degree it manifests.

well, a lot of people work in places they are forced to be around smokers. Civil servants often work in public areas with smokers and certain professions like bouncers have high levels of it. They shouldn't be forced to find different jobs just because of someone else's habit.

I guess we both just are trying to pass it off to people on opposite sides. You are saying non-smokers should go elsewhere and I'm saying smokers should go elsewhere and when a city council looks at it, which is the larger voting group? ;-)

Stu, when you say "forced" do you really mean it? Are those bouncers actually forced to work around smokers? Is someone compelling those civil servants to be around smokers? If the basics behind American employment haven't changed since I last checked, they certainly are not "forced" to have a job around cigarette smoke. I'm not forced to work with a computer at work...but my job description requires the person who holds the job to work with a computer. If I didn't want to, I'd either ask my boss for a transfer or I'd quit. Problem solved.

When you pick places to work, you weight the pros and cons of many different factors. Pay, atmosphere, proximity to your home, benefits, etc. For some people, the amount of vacation time is paramount. For others, it's the quality health plan. Those people have enough of a problem with tobacco smoke don't have the right to impose regulations upon everyone else in order to guarantee a smoke-free workplace. They must choose the work environment that they want the most.

In fact, this isn't as much about the right to pollute your lungs with tobacco as it is about property rights. The owner of the property or the business deserves the right to choose if his or her property allows smoking on it, and in what fashion. The state/government/people deserve as much a say in how that owner runs his business as the state/government/people have in telling you how and when to have sex...which is to say none.

Your last comment made it seem as if you believe the democratic process should sort this issue out. I completely disagree with you if this is the case and that is what you believe. Your rights should never be at the mercy of the whim of the majority. This is another reason why this situation pisses me off. What business is it of other people to choose how others live and use their property, *especially* when any dangers that may be faced in the workplace are voluntarily faced?

No, I don't agree with justifying the erosion of individual rights at the feet of public health. If there was a large enough market for smoke-free nightclubs, then they would start opening. Of course, since these very kinds of regulations are the ones slowly choking off the ability to actually do business, not many people want to take the risk and try it.

Of course no one forces people to be in those situations, but many have few alternatives. Did anyone force coal miners to inhale lethal amounts of coal dust? Did anyone force them into a job which forbade home ownership and purchases from non-company stores?

Its not like the ban is on all tobbacco products either, only those which affect other people. It is plainly written in there that it only means lit products and makes no mention of smokeless tobbacco.

Smokers should weight the pros and cons themselves. If they want to smoke they should stay home and do it, if they want to go out with friends do that but decide which they would more like to do.

The rights of the majority should never be in the hands of the minority.

Stu, "few alternatives" doesn't cut it. People have options and it's up to THEM to choose among them the best one that matches their values. It also doesn't matter that there are legalistic loopholes or some exemptions; that's like asking someone to stop complaining they are about to get kicked in the shins as opposed to kicked in the face.

You talk about rights, but you certainly don't respect the property rights of the business owner who DOES have the right to decide if smoking should be allowed in his or her establishment. You also certainly don't respect the rights of people to smoke in the first place, considering the disastrous "25 feet around windows and doors" provision.

The rights of the majority HAVE NEVER been under threat! There are no violations of rights since they can decide to go elsewhere if they dislike the atmosphere. Majority rights do NOT trump individual rights. Perhaps when some personal activity dear to your heart is under the legal knife, you'll understand.

I personally think that you really need to get over yourself! The city is doing a good thing by creating the smoking ban. If you want to kill yourself with those cancer sticks, do it in your own home. Don't do it where the smoke is not only harming you, it is giving off second-hand smoke that is harming others. I would much rather live then let you selfish smokers smoke in public areas, thank you.

I personally hope to see smoking one day become illegal! I think that it is a pathetic waste of time, money, and life. And you people wonder why the ozone layer has a hole!! Even I know this, and i'm only thirteen, for your information.

Nikki, I quit smoking four years ago because I didn't like the cost and didn't like the impact on my health.

Your desire to ban things that hurt people may sound righteous and moral, but it isn't. You completely ignored what I've written above regarding individual rights and responsibilities. I suggest you do that and come back later with something more mature.

Just another Health Nazi trying to tamper with our lives and property. Who's the selfish one when you want to ban things because you don't like them?

I'm glad that you quit smoking. Good for you.

And yes, I must admit that everyone has his or her own rights and responsibilities, BUT part of those "responsibilities" is to respect others rights.

Do you really think that it is fair that you can puff away harming thousands of people and the environment while so many people are trying to fix it? I think not.

And you may want to check your information before you go making unneccessary accusations of people. You see, my aunt had smoked since she was 14. She died of emphasima just two months ago. Her now 22 year old daughter now has the beginnings of lung cancer from her mother's second-hand smoke. My father also smokes, and I would MUCH rather not let him die.

So let's think about this, not only do I "not like" smoking, I DESPISE it. It has now affected my life even though I never wanted ANYTHING to do with it.

So who's really the immature one? I think that we both know the answer to that one.

Nikki, let's check your consistency on respecting others' rights.

You claim you want smoking banned and you definitely support having it banned "public places", which in the context of the Austin smoking ban actually means private businesses. So I ask you: what of the right of the business owner to decide what behavior to allow on his or her property? What of the right of the owner to allow his or her employees to smoke on that property? What of the right of the employees and employer to come to an agreement on smoking areas on that property? No; all those rights are unimportant to you.

You are worried about the consequences of breathing in air that is contaminated by tobacco smoke. You have two very simple ways to peacefully and rightfully express that concern: you can ask the owner of the property that contains the air to restrict smoking or you can avoid the place and go somewhere else that doesn't allow it. Each and every person entering that establishment also has those choices. And guess what: the people who enter and remain to conduct their business have chosen the risks of breathing that air are not important enough to outweigh the benefits of conducting their business. You have absolutely no right to override that decision-making process and replace it with your own.

What accusations are you referring to?

Hey, every single friend of mine smokes. Some allow it in their homes and some don't. I prohibit smoking in my apartment and when I finish buying a house, I'll prohibit it there as well for most occasions. My friends know this and take it into consideration when they make plans to hang out. I wish they didn't smoke; not only is it unhealthy and expensive, but I hate the smell it leaves on my clothes. But I accept that downside as something that must happen if I'm going to remain friends with them. I won't force them to quit, I won't force them to not smoke around me, and I won't demand the city government to do either.

THAT is why I refer to people like you as Health Nazis. You want to use the government to force other people around and stop them from doing things you dislike/despise/hate/etc. I suggest you revaluate what your principles are. If you apply them to their logical end, you grant the government the power to outlaw ANY activity that is dangerous or potentially so. That leads to the utter death of personal responsibility and the rise of state tyranny. Because the power to ban what you hate may be turned against something you love.

You are 13. I am 24. We can drop this stupid "immature" line of argument right now. Deal with the arguments.

Fuck you. I think that you are a cynical asshole who is completly self-absorbed. I can't believe that you would talk to a 13 year old that way!!! Jerk!!!!

Forget you! I 'll come back when you can start acting your age, you old fart! I am so sick of hearing about your "rights" of idiot smokers. Thank god for smoking bans. They put people like you in their place.

Why bother commenting if you offer nothing substantive to say other than "I think you're stupid, ha!"? Since both of you have nothing but petty childishness to say and won't attempt to respond to the substance of my arguments, why drop by and leave a comment? To make yourselves feel good by lamely insulting me? To cement in the minds of my readers and myself that both of you are unable to discuss this issue without resorting to personal attacks and the outright advocation of tyranny? Pathetic.

I am doing a project for my school about the pros and cons of smoking bans. I have already gathered enough information about the pros, so I wanted to know if you would mind helping me with the cons? By the way, I just wanted to let you know that I personally think that your site is very informative. I think that you have a good point in your opinions and concerns.

Katie, I'll contact you via e-mail. If that doesn't work, just post another comment and we'll talk here.

the facts:

Over 13,000 people die every year from the effects of smoking.

Smoking is the #1 cause of premature birth in the U.S.

Over 20% of the American population is at risk of lung cancer from second-hand smoke.

Every 8 seconds, someone in the world dies due to tobacco.

About 1 out of 5 deaths in the U.S. are caused by tobacco.

Cigarette smoke contains 11 different chemicals known to cause cancer.

Over 50,000 people die each year from second-hand smoke in the U.S. alone.

Cigarette smoke contains the radioactive isotype Polonium-210, which is known to be deadly.

I think the smoking ban is a GOOD idea.

If the calculus you live your life by is, "avoid risk behaviors known to cause disease," then fine. I hope you the best.

What I cannot countance are people forcing me to live like they want me to. Read that three more times and fucking memorize it. I don't care at all that cigarette smoke is blatantly, completely, and acutely unhealthy to breathe. The choice to smoke is the individual's, the choice to enter a business is the individual's, and the choice to allow smoking on a piece of propert is the property owner's. All bear the responsibility for their decisions. That means the lung cancer contracted from frequenting a smoky bar for ten straight years is the fault of the individual who walked into that bar willingly each time...not the smoker.

How about something to really "clear the air"?

How about you, by yourself, enter a bar one Friday night. Find all the smokers. Ask them once to stop smoking indoors. They'll *rightly* tell you to fuck off.

So, do what you are endorsing right now: try and throw them out of the bar and don't let anyone else stop you. Be a man; don't ask the government to do it for you by proxy. If you feel so strongly about this, then why not just skip the wasteful middleman and do the dirty work on your own? If you think you have the right to push people around, then have you actually done it face-to-face rather than hiding behind a city councilman or your vote?

Stuff your statistics. Any act is fraught with risk and danger of varying degrees. But more importantly, you don't have the right to dispose of my or others' property as you want.

I would like to start off by saying that I will not ' "be a man" ' because I am a woman. Got a problem with that?

And by the way, your bluntness is highly disturbing. I did not come to your website to be made a fool of, I came to it to view an opinion and to state my own. I, in no way, shape or form disagree with you in your views on smokers rights. I was merely presenting you with the facts.

Must you really make such a vivid attempt to belittle every commenter on your website? Must you act as the top dog in every pathetic "conversation" that you have?

I believe that every citizen of this country should have equal rights. I also believe that it is wrong for smokers to be able to smoke in PUBLIC places, need I mention that I never said that one should not be allowed to smoke within their own property? Didn't think so. Why should non-smokers be forced to aviod restaurants, bars, and other spaces where smoking is allowed simply because a few selfish smokers have to have their way? They shouldn't. It's as simple as that.

So you can just shove that. I really don't give a shit.

Your gender is not relevant; I was merely using a figure of speech. My coarseness is a direct function of hearing the same arguments repeatedly over the years. They didn't persuade me then and they don't persuade me now. I get the strong feeling that people who post on how dangerous smoking is haven't read the reasons why I oppose bans on that activity. Hence, I reacted. I do not apologize.

Part of the problem is you said you thought "the smoking ban" is a good idea. The context of this post and so many others I've written on this subject is the recently imposed smoking ban in Austin, TX. Your first comment made it sound like you agreed with THAT specific plan (which does ban smoking on many types of private property) and made no attempt to specify the parts of the plan you liked. So you may want to clarify exactly what kind of smoking ban you prefer.

But perhaps not, for it seems you agree with the general lean of the law anyway. Understand this: "restaurants, bars, and other spaces where smoking is allowed" can ALL be private property, Ma'am. Therefore, you are subject to the criticism I've leveled. It is the OWNER of such property that has the right to determine if smoking is allowed and where it should occur. If one IHOP wants to keep its long tradition of being a late-night smoking hangout alive and one on the other side of town wants to attract customers who want to eat in a nonsmoking restaurant, then that's their prerogative. They are responding to the desires of their customers.

In a society without a smoking ban, no one is "forced" to avoid anything. Every individual has fundamental choices to make each day that relate to the things they value. As should be bluntly obvious to anyone, there are millions of people who will willingly endure a smoking environment to conduct business, eat, drink, and lounge around. As should also be plain to see, there are people who want to do those activities in a smoke-free environment. So, what's the solution? You let people make up their own minds and let businesses react to changing demand. If businesses pop up that cater to nonsmokers, then great. If not, then one of two things: tough shit, or start your own. You don't flex your authoritarian muscles and go all Health Nazi on us by trying to force strangers to do what you want.

So, how about responding to my proposition? Are you willing to forgo the legal process, just do what you advocate, and personally force people to stop smoking as they sit in an establishment peacefully? If you feel you have the authority to demand a government do this, then certainly you should have the authority to do it on your own.

I'd advise against wielding "selfish" as a pejorative on this website. I regard acting in one's rational self-interest as a positive value.

Your final comment belies your true interest in equal rights, which is to say you "really don't give a shit" about them.

Although you have made it very clear that you do not apologize, I, on the other hand do. I overreacted to your "statements" and I am sorry. As to your suggestion of taking the law "into my own hands", so to speak, I believe that violence is immature and shows a lack of respect for others beliefs and rights, which I actually "give a shit" about.

What I was referring to in that particular term is the smokers that refuse to smoke outside, although this is now highly irrelivant.

I read your webpage a little more carefully this time, and I must say that you are very persuasive. I have changed my opinion on the smoking bans. All people should have equal rights, and that includes smoking on private property and establishments that allow it.

Although my opinion has changed, the facts never will. Smoking will always be deadly, even though it is a person's right to decide whether or not they chose to smoke. So there.

I appreciate you reconsidering the issue. It is very rare these days when someone openly admits to having their mind changed on something. You've got an excellent starting point in not wanting to engage in violence. The basis of my opposition to smoking bans is they constitute violence against property owners and smokers. I only condone violence when in response to violence; self-defense being another positive value.

Smoking will always be a harmful and essentially wasteful activity. But since we can't force people to be rational, the best we can do is explain the dangers and let them make their own choices.

Thanks for helping me get the picture. As you can see, I am very opinionated.

Also very busy. I am anxious to see who will win the election, so I am jumping back and forth from the news to the computer.

Got to go, thanks for the "insight".

you say we are all saying the same thing... i'll give you a few situations...

lets say i own a bar... you indirectly say that it is the right of the owner to let people harm other people in this bar because it is my private property.... well let's say i want to allow people to stab other people in the lungs... is it not my private property? should the government not act?

lets say i own a diner... i have a woman who's been a regular here for 15 years and she now becomes pregnant. she does not want to subject her unborn child to this smoke... does she need to stop coming in for the next 9 months?

think about others you ignorant asshole.

Jana, your scenario may make sense at first glance, but it still runs into the same problems I've been talking about.

In the first, where you allow smoking in your bar, people are free to come and go (provided they follow your other rules). Someone sensitive to smoke would immediately notice the place was not smoke-free and would weigh his or her options: enter and suffer because you place a higher value going to the bar, or leave and go somewhere else because you place a higher value on your health. The smokers in the bar are not responsible for the actions other people take when they choose to enter an area that is hazardous for their health.

In the second example, you first forget I am an anarchist and don't want the government to exist in the first place. But ignore that for the moment. You have the right to state "You can stab people in this establishment." It makes you look bad, yes, but that right is yours to flex. The morality of getting stabbed in the bar, however, is a question outside your property rights. This is because an assault on a non-aggressor is an open-and-shut case of negative property rights behavior. An individual owns his or her body completely and no one EVER has the right to attack another when the victim has not violated the rights of the attacker. Your example falls apart.

And YES, your pregnant customer should go somewhere else for the duration of her pregnancy if she doesn't want to expose her unborn child to tobacco. If you, as the owner, think she shouldn't have to change her behavior, you are perfectly within your right to temporarily ban smoking in your diner while she's carrying her child. What the hell is so hard about this to accept?

Think about others? You aren't thinking very hard about smokers and property owners, my friend.

believe it or not i am thinking about others... for one thing my brother is a smoker and i know that if we went out to a resturaunt that allowed smoking he would have 1 or 2 cigarettes. if we went out to one that didnt allow it, it would be much less convenient and so he wouldnt. so that right there is helping him and all the people around him out at least a little bit. and property owners? smoking has been banned in my state for a while now and studies have shown that the ban has saved them loads of money... more money than lost on cleaning supplies and other things. and yes... i do see how it is their right to smoke and this ban would cut in on their rights... but do they not also have a right to cut, starve, kill, or poison themselves? whether you see it or not i like to help people. and whether they see it or not they are hurting themselves. i mean its one thing to hurt yourself but i feel that it's quite another to hurt the people around you. i almost want to know your feelings on drinking and driving... like what you do in your own private car... or before you get into the car is your own choice. well that is something that can hurt you and other people on the road, and many times it has. i feel that the law against drunk driving has really saved a lot of lives, and i would find it very difficult for you to tell me differently on this one. i want you to please drop your guard down for five minutes here and listen to me. im not saying i expect you to change your opinion, i just want you to forget your opinion and not try to contradict my writings for 5 minutes and just hear me out. ultimately, this law will help people. being stubborn is not going to do anything positive for this situation.

First of all, I'm amazed at the reaction of this issue and I would like to address this statement by Drizz:

"So I ask you: what of the right of the business owner to decide what behavior to allow on his or her property?"

I hypothetically suggest this extreme situation:

There is a bar owner who does not like black people. He is a private business owner who has been in this particular business for many successful years. Just recently, his racist views started to appear in his restaurant; although he never directly said that black people could not come into his restaurant, he put up Confederate flags and various other racist-against-blacks paraphernalia that made it difficult for black people to "feel comfortable," if you will, in his restaurant. Subtly, he made it so that he didn't have black people in his restaurant.

Private business or not, this is a civil rights violation and he can be sued for it.

The same is for smokers and non-smokers. By making the environment smoking, non-smokers are not encouraged to be there, and if they are, they are not "comfortable" (I use this term very, very loosely). There are even people who absolutely cannot be around cigarette smoke, like those who suffer from arthritis and other medical maladies; it's almost a civil rights violation not to "allow" or cater to their needs (again, loose terminology). Although the private bar owner does not directly disallow those with medical maladies to enter, he puts them in a situation where it is nearly impossible for them to enter!

Drizz, if I may address you personally, you mentioned the rights of the private business owners. I admit that at first, I was skeptical to take away their freedoms just because I do not like the idea of smoking. But the rights of private business owners have never been exempt from the government; they are obligated to keep their restaurant clean and up to the government's standards by health committees and organizations, for example.

Do they have the right to leave their restaurant a mess? Do they have the right to sell alcohol to minors? No. The government restricts their "rights" to do such. I view this in a very similar manner.

And I don't think, overall, that they're going to be hurting as much as they claim they might be.

Besides, the private companies that are worried they might not make it if the ban is passed... I have news for them: if they were so close on the line that this type of ban can deteriorate their businesses, who knows if they would have made it in the first place?

Another point: You said, and I quote, "When you pick places to work, you weight the pros and cons of many different factors."

Not so much. The government does step in to make the workplace safer; health conditions are dominant in that particular issue! Many people are lucky to have a job because it's hard to get one with a declining economy (entirely different topic, sorry). Without many choices, jobs within smoking environments are a health hazard that non-smoking employees have to put up with every day that they work.

Questions/comments always welcome.

Jenni, regarding the hypothetical you posited...so what? Does a black man have a RIGHT to drink beer at the bar? On what grounds? I would fully support the racist bar owner's freedom to exclude WHOMEVER he felt like excluding, because it is his bar, not mine, yours, or the City Council's. In this case it is a unintelligent and ulgy use of that freedom.

Re-read what is written to the very top right of this post. I don't want government at all and I certainly don't think it can legitimately compel business owners to do things they don't want to do. I apply this to all individuals; bar owners are just a the latest group to be persecuted. Those bar owners are not violating anyone's rights because anyone on private property ought to respect the wishes of the property owner. I don't kick down your front door, ignore your demands I leave, and make myself a sandwich for the very same reason.

Your contempt for the businesses affected by these regulations does not help your argument.

I don't give a damn if the government is stepping in to force people around or not. If we have free will (and I say we do), then EVERY competent individual measures their actions against their values and I'll tell you right now: those that visit smoky environments demonstrate every day they are willing to put up with that atmosphere by their very presence. If they seriously feared for their health, they'd go somewhere else or have someone else go in to take their place. It is as simple as that.

Your health hazard is millions of other people's "the character of the bar" and your inner tyranny reveals itself when you demand other people (the government) to coerce those values around to your liking.

I opposed the new ban for a simple reason: it was disguised as a policy to protect worker's from the harmful effects of cigarrette smoke. this would lead you to believe that the employees of these establishments are in favor of this ordinance. And you would be wrong! Speaking as a former bartender and bar manager I can tell you that the VAST majority (80% to 90%) of bar employees are smokers and like being able to smoke while they work and are against this stupid law. I find it sad that this was the reason used to push it through when the peple being "protected" didn't want said protecttion in the first place. To all the nonsmokers who say they just want to go out and enjoy a night without having to be in a smoke filled environment: YOU ALREADY COULD!!! Two thirds of the bars in Austin were already smoke free, why do you have to have all of them? Where are the smokers supposed to go to enjoy the same kind of entertainment? We aren't even allowed to smoke on the patio areas according to the new law and being 25 feet away from the doors and windows put us out in the street downtown. I agree with Drizz, What about the rights of the property owners in all this? We do not need more frivolous laws, this is something that individuals should decide on their own without forcing other people to bend to their wills without any recourse. And addressing the hypothetical about the black man wanting beer: What about the smoker that went to a bar wanting a beer? Why do I have to change who I am just to have what everyone can? This is also discrimination against a minority, the smokers.
Since the only places exempt from this law are "fraternal organization clubhouses" I propose we form a PRIVATE CLUB and find a bar that is willing to be our clubhouse. We'll call ourselves the Smokeys and remember what what it's like to not have the health facists telling what we can or can't do with our bodies while enjoying a drink and a night out. Oh, you nonsmokers who believe in personal choice and freedom are welcome too, we do not discriminate!

It's pretty simple for me. Smoking harms the people around the smoker. It shouldn't be allowed. I feel the only reason that it is still legal to smoke is because of the big $$ tobacco companies make and who they give it to. Is there anything else that directly harms the innocent people around the user like smoking does? and it's still legal?
Alcohol? No. When I drink I don't directly harm you. If I get drunk and act stupid, my actions may harm you, but that's different.

Regardless of the private businees owners rights that you keep commenting on, something that is harmful to the people around you shouldn't be allowed. Yes, I know I don't have to go where people smoke, but I shouldn't have to endure the harm of smoke just because I want to go to a bar or watch a band, not to mention enjoying a meal without nasty smoke around. If smoking were benign it wouldn't matter, but it's not. It causes fatal diseases. That's way it should be banned.

It is also highly addictive. It it weren't so addictive maybe smokers would be more willing to refrain from smoking around non-smokers.

Of course this is my opinion and opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

Cheers,
E.

Eric, if is the *action* of a drinker that causes the problems, why can't you apply the same standard to a smoker? A smoker does not harm others around him by smoking; the others around him ***choose*** to expose themselves to the tobacco smoke emitted. In effect, if anyone is to blame for health problems caused by second hand smoke, that blame belongs squarely in the lap of those who decided to stay in that smoky environment.

Your preferences don't even come within earshot of justifying the use of cops to arrest and courts to fine people for smoking on the property of people who would otherwise allow it. IT IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY. This is so important that I must continue beating the drum in support of it. You are arguing for the eradication of a principle that allows you to live your life freely.

Your "it kills people" standard would wipe out countless other human activities. Your "it hurts others around you" standard would wipe out even more. What kind of a padded blissful Utopia are you calling for, where risk is legislated out of existence?

There really isn't much point in discussing this with you, not in the least because you flatly ignore the fact that many people *just like to smoke* and that has no bearing whatsoever with how much Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson, or RJR Reynolds contribute to politicians.

You, sir, are a walking example of the Health Nazi I spoke of before. Your opinions are your own, but they represent a direct attack on the freedom that once made this country so special. If nothing else gets your attention, just wait until one of your pastimes, habits, or hobbies gets trashed and regulated. The way things are going now, that has probably already happened. You just don't understand why.

"Your "it kills people" standard would wipe out countless other human activities. Your "it hurts others around you" standard would wipe out even more."

Name one that is like smoking...

"Your preferences don't even come within earshot of justifying the use of cops to arrest and courts to fine people for smoking on the property of people who would otherwise allow it. IT IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY."

So if it were my property, I should be allowed to harm my patrons who choose to be there? Smoking is not like alcohol. I have one drink, everything is fine. I have one smoke, everyone around me is effected.

Don't be so quick to judge people. You don't know me. Pre-judging is what you are disguising as owners rights. Smoking is not healthy for anyone. Neither is pissing in the street. They both spread disease. Why should an always harmful activity be seen as a god given right? Drinking, skydiving, xtreme anything, eating shitty food, they all can carry risks. None of them will even come close to what always happens to you and those around you when you smoke. You are ALWAYS harming yourself and those around you in some way! Not so for other things. Provide examples and I can retort...

Don't take me wrong, I don't like or want our government either. I want a lot of illegal things to be legal, but not in public venues where others can be harmed by my smoke. Smokers need to take responsibility too. It's not just up to non-smokers.

One more thing, If I am sitting in a restaurant or bar and no one is smoking, I'm enjoying myself and my drink comes to me, take a sip, relax, enjoy the atmosphere.
Then a person comes down and lights up, your saying I "choose" to be there with the smoke? No. Their smoke was put upon me by the smoker. It's absolutely invasive. Now, at this point I could do 3 things:
1. Get up and leave the bar that I was enjoying myself in. (I shouldn't have to.)
2. Ask the person to put out their smoke. (yeah right!)
3. Stay there and endure this new poison that entered my environment. (I shouldn't have to!)

It's a free country and I expect my assumed rights to breathe smoke free air to be upheld as much as your assumed right to allow smoking in public. (or private bars, which fall under a rather public entity of classification when compared to say, your home, but you don't mention that.)

Ever own a restaurant or bar? Ever try to do whatever you want in that establishment? It doesn't happen because they are bound to government and state agencies that regulate what happens in you "private" bar.

So we are at an impass.

I think bar owners have a right to run smokey bars. This despite
Eric's comment (Eric should know beforehand that he's in a smoking bar, either via signs or via reputation).

But why should I care this right of the bar owners?

They don't care about my right to sleep quietly, without hyperamplifed idiot rock music penetrating my bedroom. So, I wouldn't care if they all got shut down completely.

America could learn from Japanese customs of consideration and respect for others.

Mr. Grossman, there is a lot to be said regarding the lack of respect and consideration in American culture, especially in ubran areas.

However, I challenge you to provide a coherent basis for your assertion of a "right to sleep quietly," especially when it is often the case that people know of nearby bars when they decide to move into a neighborhood, mirroring your quite valid point about Eric knowing beforehand if a business allows smoking or not.

The thing about the smoking ban that is scary to me is it gets rid of establishment owners rights to operate the kind of business they want to. Smoking is not illegal, and therefore whoever owns a business should be allowed to do whatever legal activity they want in it. I agree that smoking is annoying to people who don't smoke. The problem here for me is not health issues...everyone knows smoking is bad for you health...but it is a legal activity. What you are telling people is its NOT your right to own and operate a legal establishment of your choice. This is setting a dangerous precedent... Next up no drinking in bars because people get drunk and fight or drive and wreck into other people. No more eating McDonald’s hamburgers because fatty foods cause more deaths in America than ANY other thing. The biggest thing to remember here are bars/restaurants are not public service institutions. They are supposed to have the right to serve or refuse service to whomever they choose. Now if you want to debate wether or not smoking should be legal altogether that's a different issue for me altogether. But's that's not what this ban is about. The problem I'm having with it are my constitutional rights to personal freedoms.

I think the smoking ban is a good thing. Second hand smoke has bee n proven to cause cancer. So how is that fair when smokers constitutional rights to smoke outweigh non-smokers constitutional right to breathe clean air? Anyways there are more non-smokers than smokers, and it's not like you are going to die if they can't have a smoke for 30-40 minutes.

Jonathon, there is no "constitutional right" to smoke and there is no "constitutional right" to breathe clean air. There are only the rights to your body and to your external property. If you had bothered to read the discussion above you, you would have seen my point that a business that allows smoking inside DOES NOT violate the rights of anyone inside AS LONG AS customers, workers, and others are allowed to exit and leave the premises as they wish. If an employee has a health condition that is exacerbated by tobacco smoke or just plain hates being around it, that employee must make a fucking choice and take responsibility for it:

1. Work somewhere else
2. Ask the business owner to prohibit smoking
3. Ask the business owner to be moved away from the smoke.
4. Put up with the smoke

It doesn't matter if non-smokers outnumber smokers. Right and wrong is not up for a vote, particularly when individuals' private property is at stake.