Smoking Bans

[vssmith]

In the recent Democratic debate time was spent talking about laws prohibiting smoking.

I am not a smoker and I do not like smoke but I do not see how the proprietor of a bar can be told not to have smoking in his establishment. I think owner's preference should be clearly marked on the door or some other visible place but to tell him/her how to run the business is not right. I would not likely go into a smoking establishment and others could have the same option. It seems natural that non-smoking bars would spring up because of demand.

[Clintonista2]

1. What if the owners preference was to deny blacks?

Who are WE to tell him how to run his own establishment! :sarcasm:

[vssmith]

6. I see a difference there--don't you?

[Clintonista2]

7. No

[ProdigalJunkMail]

8. wow...that is nearly an insane position

equating smoking with being black or any other race...wow!!!

sP

[Clintonista2]

12. Nope, I wasn't comparing the two in any way

I pointed out that the government *does* and *should* have a say in how someone runs certain aspects of their own "establishment." For instance, if you believe that the government has the right to intervene if an owner puts up a "whites only" sign, then you *do believe* that the government has a say in how one runs their property.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

14. you were asked if you saw any difference in the two

you said no...

sP

[Clintonista2]

15. There is no difference between the situation

There is a difference between being black and being a smoker, but I never implied that they were same in the first place, so its really moot point.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. ok

:crazy:

[Beelzebud]

48. Then you're insane...

[BlooInBloo]

19. Yah - it's also the owner's choice to admit the shoeless. Also just like black folks.

What idiocy.

[Blue-Jay]

20. You can't equate voluntary behavior with genetics

and expect to be taken seriously.

I can walk into any non-smoking establishment and not light up a smoke for as long as I'm there. That's a bit different than being denied admission because of the color of one's skin. That's something you can't turn on and off.

[TahitiNut]

33. That comparison leaves the land of rationality far behind. What next?

Are tobacco Nazis going to compare ETS to being a Jew in a Nazi gas chamber??? Fucking insane.

[Clark2008]

57. But he can deny smokers?

Back atcha...

[JDPriestly]

2. Smoking is banned in bars in California.

The reason is that so many waiters and waitresses suffered from lung cancer from second-hand smoke. (At least that is what we have been told.) It has worked out very well. You cannot smoke in buildings at all. That, too, has worked out very well.

If you go to some of the old saloons, you will see that patrons used to be allowed to spit into spittoons.

Apparently they are still used by those who chew tobacco.

http://www.mudjug.com/Spitoon.html

We'd be pretty grossed out if someone was spitting in a bar nowadays. If you live in a place in which smoking is not allowed in buildings and then go into a room in which someone has been smoking, it smells really gross. You will appreciate the smoke-free environment.

It makes no sense to complain about air pollution and then work or live in smoke filled rooms. No sense at all.

[ixion]

3. "sense" is not the issue... it's about personal choice

if a person doesn't want to work in a "smoking" bar, they don't have to.

It is not up to you or anyone else to decide how people should live their lives.

[Mountainman]

26. Yes it is. Smoking is the act that demands social awareness not working.

You have no right to threaten someone's lively hood or health by your habits. Smoking in the around others is anti social behavior.

[taterguy]

38. You have no right to threaten someone's health by your habits?

Glad to hear it. I guess folks don't have the right to take unnecessary car trips since those spew out far more toxins than cigarette smoke.

Oh wait, people take trips in cars all the time when they could get to their destination via walking or biking. I guess there are exceptions to every rule.

[JDPriestly]

36. My husband (like many other people) has asthma.

Smoke-filled environments are a serious threat to his health. It is not a matter of his choice if others are smoking in rooms in which he breathes the air.

[Beelzebud]

49. So do I. I stay out of those places. Why should I dictate to a bar owner what his rules should be?

[JDPriestly]

51. The state of California did not want to have to pay the cost of

health care for the victims of the second hand smoke -- people who work in bars.

[Beelzebud]

52. Yes because no bar employee smokes...

LOL

I think every person I know that works at a bar, smokes.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

67. I work in a pub

And I don't smoke.

[JDPriestly]

77. The state ends up paying the costs of their health care

unless they earn enough not to need Medicaid when they become ill. I suppose it could also be a Worker's Compensation cost although I have never heard of Worker's Compensation covering damage caused by smoking in the workplace.

I love clean air, and, in part because of the geography and in part because of pollution from other sources, we here in southern California have all too little of it. That may be why we don't like smoking inside. It is just one more source of pollution, the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[Xenotime]

4. Well said.

[Clark2008]

58. Restaurants in my town are suffering right now.

The bars, where one can still smoke, are packed, but, since they passed a law banning smoking in any establishment where the "under 21" crowd are allowed, restaurants are vacant by 10.

Of course, this is the South, so there may be differences in the numbers of people who smoke - or more likely, only smoke when they drink - but my husband and I went out two weeks ago. It was DEAD after 10 p.m. at the restaurant, so we went to a bar... yup... packed and smoky.

[trumad]

5. The smoking ban is the best law Florida ever passed....

[Flabbergasted]

9. We are constantly telling people how to run their business.

I'm a smoker but I rarely smoke at bars. I think it's a good idea. It won't be popular and would face massive oposition from the industry and smokers but it's a good idea IMO.

[johnnie]

10. .

:popcorn:

These are always good.

[SoCalDem]

11. You got that right.. we'll need more

[johnnie]

13. .

:spray:

Perfect.

[VP505]

17. Owners preference

or the greater good of society? Smoking bans may not be popular with the addicted but they are a benefit to just about everyone who works or socializes in that environment.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

61. In this case, the owners preference DOES trump 'the greater good'

The owner SHOULD be allowed to smoke crack in his establishment. He should be allowed to have an opium den if he so desires. Hell, he should be allowed to SELL crack in his establishment.

There is a difference between than doing something for the greater good of society and doing something out of self-righteous behavior. The government has no business telling me what I can or can't put into my body. Consequently, the government has no right to force someone to put something into their body.

If I want to go to a smoke-filled bar with nodding people sitting in a corner, than goddamnit I should be able to. If I buy a business with my own money, then I want to be able to allow those smokers and the smackheads to come in and smoke up to their heart's content. If you don't like the smoke, then this isn't the establishment for you. Why should you take away MY rights because another person isn't bright enough to go somewhere they're comfortable?

So tell me, how much of this ban actually benefits the greater good of society? Are we safer now? All we have done is cater to the people who think they are morally superior because they don't ingest mind-altering chemicals. The last thing a progressive society needs is to give the 'holier than thou' crowd more power.

[youthere]

18. Where the hell do you get off...making sense like that?

;)
I would have no issue with smoking/non-smoking bars or restaraunts-although it's unlikely I would patronize a smoking establishment as I don't smoke. I stay out of sports bars because I'm not a fan...so why should this be any different?

[LanternWaste]

21. This smoker...

This smoker only goes into non-smoking establishments and supports additional taxes on each pack to offset the crap we infest everyone else with.

Do you believe that a convenience store clerk should be able to allow the consumption of alcohol on his premises? If not, what are the precise and relevant differences?

[johnnie]

23. I see no problem with a convenience store clerk allowing that

If they have a license to do so and choose to do it, what's the problem?

[Jed Dilligan]

22. This is one we'll never agree on at DU, but

I'm fairly happy with the way it's worked out in California. Bars in which all the workers are co-owners can still allow smoking, otherwise, it's illegal. There are certain bars that just break the law, and apparently the fines they pay don't outweigh their increased patronage. Other places provide comfortable outdoor areas for smokers. So there is a maximum amount of choice, from smoke-free to smoke-filled, and waitpeople have the option to work in whichever place their more comfortable.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. And to be fair, our weather is usually pretty nice.

It's not like telling someone to go out in a -80 Wind Chill.

[DemGa]

24. What about a safe working environment for emloyees?

That's one thing that tips the scale for me in favor of indoor bans on smoking.

ed: I see this was addressed up-thread. People may make choices when they are very young or perhaps have few options; and yes, they should be protected.

[supernova]

27. That's the angle I support

Yes, individual smokers aren't a big deal, but if you have a lot of them passing through an establishment throughout the day, that takes a toll on the lungs of the people who work there.

Plus, you have people like me who would like to go out more but don't because we can't stay in a smoke filled room for very long.

Tonight for instance, I'm going to http://www.caffedriade.com/index.cfm?view=11">an outdoor cafe, so the smoking issue doesn't matter.

[Mountainman]

25. The reason is that those who work in the establishment are subjected to second hand smoke

which is unhealthy and they cannot get away from it without losing their jobs.

[supernova]

29. Smokers Wanted

You mean you can't put that in your help wanted ad?

;-)

[Mountainman]

31. No. There is such a thing as equal opportunity in CA.

[Beelzebud]

50. And what about the employees that smoke?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

80. Dana Reeve died from lung cancer from secondhand smoke.

Christopher Reeve's wife. She was a singer and died from lung cancer contracted from second hand smoke while singing in bars and lounges.

[Bandit]

28. Spitting bans

Does the same rational apply? should I be allowed to spit on you, your table and food? Smoke gets on you, your table and food. Seems the same exact logic should apply..

[Toots]

85. Your is the only post I have read so far that uses plain logic

But it is obvious that logic is rarely used here, on this subject anyway.

[Javaman]

30. Wait! wait!!

I had to get the :popcorn:

Okay, continue. :)

[Javaman]

32. I love reading about smokers justifying their addiction.

:) :popcorn:

[johnnie]

34. And I love seeing non-smokers whine

:popcorn:

[Javaman]

35. It's good entertainment, isn't it?

:) :popcorn:

[JDPriestly]

37. If you had a loved one with serious asthma, you would not find it all so funny.

[Snarkturian Clone]

46. I have serious asthma

and I'm a non-smoker. I still think smoking bans are a restriction on freedom. How come nobody ever wants to believe the MSM (rightly so) but when they say "smoking kills everyone in the world and needs to be overtaxed and banned everywhere!!!!" people believe and support it?

:hide:

[JDPriestly]

47. Maybe you need to look at some statistics.

The World Health Organization raised its estimate of smoking-related deaths Friday, saying 4.9 million people die each year and warning that its projection of 10 million deaths annually by 2030 was too low.

The U.N. health agency estimated two years ago that 4 million people a year die of smoking-related illnesses. The new figure reflects research on the role of tobacco in tuberculosis and heart deaths in China and India, said Derek Yach, WHO executive director for non-communicable diseases.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/11/health/main525264.shtml

[Snarkturian Clone]

66. I mean regarding second hand smoke NT

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Must suck to visit somewhere like California, then.

Because smoking is banned in indoor, public places, and the law has widespread, enthusiastic support. It's not going anywhere. Nope, not then, either.

Not too many whiny non-smokers, here, because we really don't have to deal with it.

Even the poor, oppressed, downtrodden, victimized smokers- have adapted to having to -gasp!- go outside to the curb before lighting up.

[johnnie]

73. I have absolutely no desire to visit California

So no, it doesn't suck.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. I'm sure we'll survive.

Somehow.

[johnnie]

84. I'm sure you will

What does that have to do with me going there or not? :shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

90. Nothing. Certainly if your motivation for visiting a place is being able to smoke inside restaurants

you're not gonna get a whole hell of a lot out of California.

Try Reno. I'm serious.

[johnnie]

92. My motivation for visiting places has nothing to do with smoking

That's just silly. I don't smoke in restaurants anyway. My lack of desire to visit California has more to do with just not wanting to go there, there is nothing for me to see there that matters. And if people are as thick as you are there, that is even more reason not to go.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. Astounding.

But, then, I'm not in any hurry to visit Cleveland, either. Chicago's fun, but only in the summer.

The rest of the Midwest.. feh.

[johnnie]

94. Ummm, ok

:shrug:

[Beelzebud]

53. I am a non-smoker and they make me want to light up!

:D

[Beerboy]

39. Yay!!! I love Nicotine Nazis!

I can't wait to see how a bunch of lazy fucks who've never done an honest day of physical work in their lives are going to tell me how to live.
Oh wait, in Minnesota, we have that. Our roads suck ass and our bridges are crumbling and falling down, but our government is johnny-on-the-spot to make sure people aren't smoking on private property.
Hooray for Nicotine Nazis!

[Perry Logan]

40. It's a public-health matter. Your rights leave off when you start hurting other people.

Someone needs to tell the gun guys this.

[alarimer]

41. Smokers cannot seem to grasp this

Workers have a right to work in safe environments and governments regulate safety conditions within workplaces all the time. If they can regulate how many cockroaches are in a restaurant or bar, then why should they not be able to regulate air quality? Those who claim that businesses have a right to run them they way they want seem to forget that there are all kinds of rules regarding what goes on in bars and restaurants. There is nothing terribly different about regulating smoking from that standpoint.

[OnionPatch]

55. Getting rid of cock roaches

and following other common safety rules do not usually infringe on the very nature of most businesses. But prohibiting smoking in places where people traditionally go to smoke is a little different, in my opinion. I'm a non-smoker but even I think it's kind of ridiculous that there can't be at least some bars where people can still smoke.

[Kingshakabobo]

60. In twenty plus years, I have NEVER heard someone say "let's go out to the bar for a smoke."

""and following other common safety rules do not usually infringe on the very nature of most businesses""

That's absolutely untrue. Running a clean, healthy and safe bar almost ALWAYS infringes on "the very nature of most businesses." The pesky government tells bar owners they must, among other things - not serve minors, not serve over-served patrons, not over-crowd their establishment, not stay open past a certain hour, etc. etc.

[OnionPatch]

64. No, but if you ever smoked before you know that it's implied

if you are a smoker. It's part of the whole bar thing for so many people. You can't tell me it isn't a traditional place to smoke. And I don't agree that serving minors and overly drunk people is a traditional part of the nature of a bar. At least not one that anyone likes. I've worked in bars many years and no one I knew wanted to serve drunks or minors. Oh, and I think bars should be allowed to stay open as long as they want.

Anyway, I only said I think there should be *some* places where it's permitted to smoke in a bar. I don't understand why there can't be any at all anywhere.

[Kingshakabobo]

86. " I don't agree that serving minors and overly drunk people is a traditional part"

Oh please. Where did you work?

I live near Wrigley Field in Chicago. If bars quit serving overly drunk people they would have to close up shop at noon..

The bottom line is - government/society makes all sorts of rules that infringe on owner's businesses. Most of the rules have to do with health and safety. As much as smokers like to bitch and whine about it, smoking IS a public health issue. I love how DUers become "libertarians" when it comes to feeding their addictions to everyone else's detriment.

[OnionPatch]

88. I'm guessing the places I worked

were a little more discriminating about their clientele than Wrigley Field. And, I don't smoke. (Not for twelve years, anyway.) So it's not my addiction and I'm not trying to foist it on anyone. I think cigarette smoke stinks and I don't think smoking should be allowed in most public places. I do understand your point but just think it's overkill that there can't be a single bar *anywhere* that allows smoking for the people who do smoke. Why can't there be some way that *some* bars can decide to be or have "smoking lounges" and people can be free to go to smoking or non-smoking establishments as it suits them at their own risk? I know that going to rock concerts may harm my hearing, but I choose to go and am sure glad they haven't outlawed loud music for health reasons. If people want quiet music, they go to a different kind of place. There is a demand for smoking bars and it seems weird that no one is allowed to fill it.
Guess I've always had a libertarian streak.
Peace.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Is it that time, again?

Shit, I thought we were still on porn and breastfeeding.

My, my, my.

Wake me when we get back to PETA. Okay? :boring:

[Maine-ah]

45. former smoker here

to a certain extent I agree with you. I agree that businesses should be able to make the choice of having smoking or non smoking. I just wouldn't visit their establishment. What pisses me off, is the people who smoke right by the entrance/exits of obvious non smoking places, like the grocery store. I never even did that when I smoked. I hate having to walk through a haze of smoke to go grocery shopping, and make my kid go through it too. Not only is it bad for me, and for her, it makes me want a smoke. I have been smoke free now for a year and a half, and still, daily, I want a smoke.

[OnionPatch]

59. Don't worry, you will get past that

I promise, there will be a day when the smell of cigarettes makes you sick. I smoked (2-packs-a-day) for 25 years and it took me a couple years after quitting to get beyond the point of wanting one, but you will get there! Congratulations on quitting!

[Maine-ah]

62. just the smell of them while I was prego made me throw up.

it doesn't do that now. My FIL has been smoke free for over 20 years, and he still wants one once and a while.

[OnionPatch]

63. Hmmm....well maybe it was the affirmations that helped me.

I really believe that what you tell yourself makes a difference. After telling myself I can't stand the thought or smell of them over and over, it must have finally worked. I find the odor truly repugnant.

[mudesi]

54. Smoking should be banned in all public places

My right to breathe trumps your right to smoke.

Period.

And don't talk about how it will hurt business, because everywhere else in the world where smoking bans have been adopted, business actually improved.

When you get right down to it, smokers are selfish.

[johnnie]

68. Here in Ohio it is showing the opposite

In fact the bar I used to go to down at the corner of my street has closed because of the ban. Their customers were locals and almost everyone smoked in there. I have heard of a few around here closing because of the ban.

[Ms. Toad]

71. Here in Ohio it is working just fine

I don't have a choice about where I go to eat during the work day, and I finally have some relief from the smoke assault have had to endure daily for years - and, guess what - the same smokers are there now who were there before. They're just not imposing their smoke on me.

[johnnie]

72. Well, I know of a few places closing

And I know that most people I know don't go to the bars any longer. And I know that a lot of bars up in this part of Ohio are letting some people smoke anyway. Only time will tell, but from what I have seen it has hurt the business of many places and from people I talk to, a lot have stopped going out. I'm sure it will get worse as the winter hits.

I don't really go out anyway, I leave that to the kids.

Here are a few links:

http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/06/16/z-apoh_smokingbanstateline_0.ART_ART_06-16-07_B4_2C71KSL.html?type=rss&cat=21

http://www.the-review.com/news/article/2607531

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070921/BIZ01/709210344

http://www.western-star.com/news/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/08/29/mj082907smokinginside.html

http://www.whiotv.com/news/14212416/detail.html?rss=day&psp=news

These were just a few I found in a few minutes on a quick search. As I said, winter will also bring less business I'm sure.

[Ms. Toad]

74. and restaurants are finding business picking up

with more diners going out who just found it too unpleasant to tolerate in the past.

Whenever the rules change, businesses change. My guess is that the vast majority of businesses that go out of business and blame the smoking ban are finding the ban a convenient scapegoat for closing a business that was marginal in the first place.

[johnnie]

75. I am all for non smoking restaurants

I have no problem waiting until I am done eating to step outside if I want a smoke. It was the mandatory ban on the bars that I found to be over the top.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

69. I agree. I cannot be friends with smokers.

I have allergic asthma which goes into inflammation, sinus infections, and eventually life threatening bronchitis and bacterial pneumonia, if it's bad enough.

If I go to a smoker's house, I will get sick with a sinus infection within 48 hours, guaranteed, from the inflammation the second hand smoke causes.

I just wish the smokers wouldn't gather round the doors of buildings where you have to run a gauntlet of people rotting their lungs. I always cough loudly when I walk thru them.

There is NO REASON why I should have to get sick if I want to go to a restaurant or a concert hall. I've skipped concerts before because there would be smoke there.

Houston just recently passed a partial smoking ban.

Don't tell me it's your right to smoke. I had my lungs washed out under general anesthesia FOUR times in FIVE years, to save my life. My lungs were completely full of pus, up to my trachea, and my mucosa was bright red, according to my doctor who operated. I would have drowned in my own pus had I not had those operations. A fairly painless, but not a pretty way to die. I was all of 33 years old when that shit started. Now my immune system is better but I can still get sick around smokers.


:banghead:

[Robb]

76. This is going to make me sound like a real jerk...

...so bear with me. I'm not, really. Ask anyone. :D

Anyhow. You're describing a pretty serious reaction; serious enough to lead me to believe it's not common.

Myself, I'll swell up and die if I eat a peanut. Increasingly common, but not across-the-board by any means. Should we ban peanuts in all publicly-served food? Or should I make the choice (I have) not to go in Thai restaurants?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

81. Millions of people have asthma of various types.

Deaths in America from asthma are on the rise, particularly in children.

I have allergic asthma. Inflammation from allergies, air pollution, smoke, etc. creates an environment that makes it easier for disease causing bacteria to settle into the inflamed nose and throat and lungs, thereby causing infection.

Do you understand this???

I had bacterial pneumonia on and off for six years (mentioned in the prior post) and uncounted visits to the emergency room for uncontrollable vomiting due to sinus draining from sinus infections.

You seem to be saying that if my reaction to smoke is "not common", then we shouldn't worry about it. It costs the taxpayers money if people who do react to secondhand smoke don't have insurance and have to go to the emergency room and possibly be admitted to the hospital. As I said, millions of Americans have asthma, allergies, or some combination thereof.

I think your analogy to banning peanuts is bad, because far more people have asthma than are allergic to peanuts. However, some schools are banning peanuts because the children who have those allergies go into anaphylactic shock, which causes your throat to swell and you can't breathe, and you die very quickly. However, if you don't go in a Thai restaurant, I would think that's a reasonable solution to your peanut allergy. Air pollution is everywhere in cities. We can't all stop driving but we can stop smoking in public places.


Why don't smokers get nicotine gum or a patch to deal with their craving, if they want to go to a non-smoking place to eat or get a mixed drink? Is that too much to ask?


It is a lot cheaper to society to prevent the secondhand smoke problem in the first place. I'd like to go to any concert I wish, and missing good music because the venue allows smoking is really sad to me, because I'm a real music freak. Hell, I recently missed Brave Combo cuz the Houston anti smoking ordinance was not in effect yet.

[slackmaster]

56. It's worked fine here in California for many years

Keeping the smokers outdoors makes the interior much more pleasant for those of us who aren't addicted to that nasty weed.

[TwilightGardener]

65. It's a local and state issue--NOT a federal issue. There's a big

difference between a bar in small-town Kentucky and a bar in Berkeley, California.

[Rhiannon12866]

70. As I told my friend who is a political neophyte, it's the RW who wants to tell everyone else

what to do. If it was mandatory that I smoke, was forced to have an abortion, marry someone of the same sex, or wear a birka, I'd sure object. But I think that people should still have choices in this country, unlike this administration. What other people do is none of my business, as long as it isn't against the law, and people's personal choices shouldn't be legislated...:shrug:

Reminds me of an old Jay Leno joke. He said that it's now legal in California, if you see somebody on the street who's smoking, you can hit him in the mouth...:eyes:

[ellisonz]

78. ...

:rofl:

[bananas]

82. Smoking Bananas

If bananas are outlawed, only outlaws will have bananas!

[KharmaTrain]

83. I Want A Ban On Perfume!

There's nothing more iritating for me to go to a concert, on a plane or a restaurant and be force to sit near someone whose loaded up with "eau de toilet" or some other scent that I can't get away from. I find that as offensive as some dude smoking a stogie.

Regarding smoking bans...I agree with those who say it's private property and the perogative of the owner, not the government. I don't like bars, but I have many friends who do and enjoy smoking. If the business states its a smoking establishment, then let the buyer beware. Private property means exactly that. If people feel offended or that their health is at risk, then don't go in. How difficult is that?

I find it hypocritical that it's ok to go into a bar and rot your liver to hell, but those damn cigarettes are a "real threat".

[Kingshakabobo]

87. Tell me what other health and safety laws/rules "private property" bar owners can ignore.

Fire codes?
Employment law?
Working bathrooms?
Serving minors?
Serving overly drunk people?
Rat droppings in the kitchen?
Spoiled/unrefrigerated food?


....and I have NEVER heard of someone having to change clothes and wash their hair due to "perfume smell." To compare the two is ridiculous.

[KharmaTrain]

89. Let's Ban Alcohol, Too...

When I go into a restaurant, I can't see most of those violations...but I sure can if someone is smoking. And places that violate those laws...which a far greater danger than "second-hand smoke" that can force an establishment out of business...either through enforcement or word gets out and people will stay away. Alcohol is far more destructive to both a person's health and that of those around them...so let's ban that as well...or, inversely, why not let kids come in.

When my wife was pregnant, she would get very sick by two smells...cigarette smoke and perfume. And yes, one time it was so bad, she couldn't help herself and messed up her clothing. At least if there's a sign that says "Smoking allowed", we know upfront what's inside and can take our business elsewhere. What part of private don't you understand. Personally, I get ill at bars between the smells of cigarettes and stale beer...a major reason I rarely go into one...but if others find that atmosphere to their liking and they know the hazzards, it's their choice...not some pious politician

Why not ban people from smoking in their own homes...but then government would have to find other things to tax to make up for the shortfall on taxes that smokers pay and no one else does.

Peace...

[depakid]

91. It's a health hazard for his workers

There's the justification plain and simple.

All the libertarian crap about "free markets" and choice aside- that's what it boils down to.

If patrons want to smoke, they can step outside. Such a huge imposition.....