The city does need more places to have brew and food and watch a game without all the smoke. Would be great if we Finally got on board with no smoking in Bars like most other Cities.

Not happening soon. HB 2267 didn't make it out of a senate committee. It would have allowed cities to make stricter smoking laws in public places. With it failing, we remain with Tennessee as the only other state that disallows this. Can you say "slave to the tobacco lobby?"

Not happening soon. HB 2267 didn't make it out of a senate committee. It would have allowed cities to make stricter smoking laws in public places. With it failing, we remain with Tennessee as the only other state that disallows this. Can you say "slave to the tobacco lobby?"

Yup.. It sucks! Is a breath of fresh air when traveling and can go out and not come home stinking of smoke. One of these days perhaps.. I am holding on..lol

so you're all about taking the rights away from people just because you don't like smoke? it should be left up to the owner of the establishment to allow or not allow smoking. if they allow smoking and you don't like it, go somewhere else... freedom of choice. with all these laws banning smoking, the smokers don't have a choice and essentially have lost the right to smoke.

so you're all about taking the rights away from people just because you don't like smoke? it should be left up to the owner of the establishment to allow or not allow smoking. if they allow smoking and you don't like it, go somewhere else... freedom of choice. with all these laws banning smoking, the smokers don't have a choice and essentially have lost the right to smoke.

your giving workers the right to work in a non harmful environment

so you're all about taking the rights away from people just because you don't like smoke? it should be left up to the owner of the establishment to allow or not allow smoking. if they allow smoking and you don't like it, go somewhere else... freedom of choice. with all these laws banning smoking, the smokers don't have a choice and essentially have lost the right to smoke.
When you have a restaurant or bar, you become a public space, which I am free to visit as I wish. When you allow smoking in these places you are filling up the public air with harmful smoke, which is infringing on my rights. That's how I view it. Also, you are always free to go outside and smoke, you won't be losing your right to smoke.

On top of this, it's been shown that most establishments increase their business when smoking is banned.

Smoking inside a public space is not a constitutional right. People all over the country go outside to smoke. It's time to make this change.

Or move to the hillbilly state that allows it.

Many places preferred not having to make the choice and alienating customers on both sides...let the State be the bad guy type of thing.

a privately owned business is not a public space. Buses, planes, airports are public spaces which i'm all for not allowing smoking except in designated areas. the state forcing a business to ban smoking is taking the rights away of people. just because you don't like smoking and want to go to a place that has smoking does not give you the right to take that right away from someone else.

a privately owned business is not a public space. Buses, planes, airports are public spaces which i'm all for not allowing smoking except in designated areas. the state forcing a business to ban smoking is taking the rights away of people. just because you don't like smoking and want to go to a place that has smoking does not give you the right to take that right away from someone else.

no it is protecting the rights of works

a privately owned business is not a public space. Buses, planes, airports are public spaces which i'm all for not allowing smoking except in designated areas. the state forcing a business to ban smoking is taking the rights away of people. just because you don't like smoking and want to go to a place that has smoking does not give you the right to take that right away from someone else.

Bars are still public places. Other states do just fine with restricting indoor smoking. they provide plenty of outdoor patio and dining spaces where you can Smoke your face off. Even my friends who are smokers support the non smoking in bars. They can't stand the Dense smoke filled places either. I always love how smokers are quick to say how we are taking away thier right to smoke and if we don't like it then we can stay home and not go to smoking establishments.. couldn't it just as easily be said that ALL THESE YEARS you have taken away our rights to enjoying a smoke free establishment.. and if you don't like it YOU can stay home and smoke!

a privately owned business is not a public space. Buses, planes, airports are public spaces which i'm all for not allowing smoking except in designated areas. the state forcing a business to ban smoking is taking the rights away of people. just because you don't like smoking and want to go to a place that has smoking does not give you the right to take that right away from someone else.

A public space is a space "made available to the public." So yes, restaurants count as public spaces. Moreover, laws against smoking fall squarely within a state's traditional police powers of "protecting public peace, safety, and welfare." Federalism and rights are often misunderstood, but forbidding smoking in restaurants available to the pubic is a power that is undeniably within the power of state legislatures. If the state decides to exercise that power, the state action fills the void. If you disagree with that, you have all the right in the world to campaign against the individual lawmakers, but you have no inherent right to smoke in public.

I don't see how a private business owner inviting people onto his privately owned property makes that property a 'public space'. I don't smoke. I love it when a place is non-smoking. I exercise that love with *my* consumer choices and *my* wallet. I guess I've yet to achieved that sense of self entitlement where I feel justified mandating to a private property owner they must accommodate my desires and wants by rule of law. I always figured if freedom was anything it was property rights. Obviously I am mistaken.

There are really no property owners in the United States anymore. Just caretakers for the state.

I don't see how a private business owner inviting people onto his privately owned property makes that property a 'public space'. I don't smoke. I love it when a place is non-smoking. I exercise that love with *my* consumer choices and *my* wallet. I guess I've yet to achieved that sense of self entitlement where I feel justified mandating to a private property owner they must accommodate my desires and wants by rule of law. I always figured if freedom was anything it was property rights. Obviously I am mistaken.

There are really no property owners in the United States anymore. Just caretakers for the state.

Call it "entitlement," but property rights are not, and never have been, unqualified in this country. The city can tell you how close you may build your house to the street, the state may mandate that you not use your building for a specified purpose, and tort liability may hold you legally accountable to an adjoining property owner under theories of nuisance. Hell, even the federal government may step in and tell you that you can't refuse service to certain people. In fact, the Constitution even provides for limitations of property rights in time of war - the government may force you to house soldiers in your own home. Limitations on the rights of property owners have never been unfettered in this country - even in the founding generation (since everyone suddenly seems interested in the Constitution again).

That being said, there is an undeniable strain of American individualism in this country. We believe there should be some limits to what the government may tell us about our own property. I count myself as a member of that group. I would be ticked if the city ticketed me for not mowing my yard regularly (after all it's my property), but they can. It's one of those things that I detest the most -- until my neighbor decides to turn his yard into a free-range prairie. We live in a world of qualified rights - it sucks sometimes - but it is precisely because of that limitation that we must remain involved in the process. It's fine to stand on your "rights" or "your wallet" - until you get outvoted at the ballot box on an issue that state has valid authority to wield.

Stew, I don't direct that at you personally - I dig your avatar. I think recognizing the reality of limitations only reinforces the work done by this board debating and educating others on property issues in our community. Issues, like smoking bans, are state issues, and thinking about or cussing and discussing them, serves to highlight the importance of local issues which have been somewhat lost in our nationalized political debate. [Believe me, I know you know this], but when we vote in state elections we are voting for just these very issues, not how we feel about healthcare, ect - these are issues that may not fall cleanly down party lines. That's why I love this board - we get to talk about the things that greatly matter to our day-to-day lives, but get lost in the debate on "bigger" (national) things.

That's why I think it's fruitless to discuss can the state do this; the only real question is should the state do this.

a privately owned business is not a public space. Buses, planes, airports are public spaces which i'm all for not allowing smoking except in designated areas. the state forcing a business to ban smoking is taking the rights away of people. just because you don't like smoking and want to go to a place that has smoking does not give you the right to take that right away from someone else.

What right do you have to screw up the air that I breath ? If I have the right to be there, then I should have the right to breath clean air.....period.

Say you invested your life savings into building a swanky new bar of your dreams one where you as the owner proudly proclaim absolutely no smoking allowed. Now say a group of citizens is able to get a proposition passed by popular vote that would require all "public spaces" by rule of law to allow smoking. Would you just accept it as one of those states right things? Really if you think about it a law banning smoking is just as intrusive and unfair as a law mandating smoking be allowed. And let's not even go into health risks when we're talking about establishments that derive most their income from the sale of alcohol. That's just silly.

I believe firmly the free market if left alone would have resulted in smoke free restaurants and bars. I don't go to bars but I'd bet today in Oklahoma City there are bars that are smoke free and it didn't take a law for that to happen. The anti-smoking laws are just lazy. There are far more non-smokers than smokers and if non-smokers voted with their choices and wallets most places would be smoke free in a matter of months.

Say you invested your life savings into building a swanky new bar of your dreams one where you as the owner proudly proclaim absolutely no smoking allowed. Now say a group of citizens is able to get a proposition passed by popular vote that would require all "public spaces" by rule of law to allow smoking. Would you just accept it as one of those states right things? Really if you think about it a law banning smoking is just as intrusive and unfair as a law mandating smoking be allowed. And let's not even go into health risks when we're talking about establishments that derive most their income from the sale of alcohol. That's just silly.

I believe firmly the free market if left alone would have resulted in smoke free restaurants and bars. I don't go to bars but I'd bet today in Oklahoma City there are bars that are smoke free and it didn't take a law for that to happen. The anti-smoking laws are just lazy. There are far more non-smokers than smokers and if non-smokers voted with their choices and wallets most places would be smoke free in a matter of months.

No, I wouldn't accept it, because I would argue that it falls outside the state's historic police powers. If a state is to legislate for the public health, safety, and welfare, such a law would be outside of the scope of power given to the state. In effect, you would have passed a law that would cause harm. I would file for an injunction with the court. If granted, it would prevent the law from going into place.

And actually, I don't find it silly that you would ban smoking in a place that derives most of its revenues from alcohol. The state can outlaw alcohol, but it's unlikely to do so again. One harm you voluntarily partake in; the other you don't. I think this is a better example: Should a bar be able to operate when it has active asbestos damage? The individual should be allowed to decide their own risk level; individuals who go to a bar with a friend, but don't drink, can watch the game but receive no harm from being at the establishment. I don't deny that a state could pass a law to remove both alcohol and cigarettes - both harm public health, but voters' appetite for that is likely nonexistent.

Now if smokers wanted their own place, fine. How do you do it? Negotiate around what it means to be a "public place." If that means "a place open to the public," create a mechanism that removes the establishment from the "public place." Create a membership program, make members pay a fee, and call it a private club. These tactics have been used other places.

A law banning smoking is just as intrusive as a law mandating that smoking be allowed? That's just a ridiculous comparison and you can't compare the two. And you can go into the health risks even though alcohol is sold. Alcohol isnt a factor here because if someone next to me is having a drink it doesn't affect my health. Not true with smoking.

Simply put, eating and drinking establishments are public places, and I have a right to go to a public place and not be subjected to smoke.

When you choose to enter a bar that allows smoking you are voluntarily putting yourself at risk of secondhand smoke, no? Nobody is forcing you to go there. You have every right in the world to refuse to enter. If you do *choose* to drink/eat at a bar that allows smoking then isn’t that choice in of itself both enabling and endorsing the bar owner’s choice to allow smoking on his property?

That’s what I don’t get. How people can feel entitled to mandate their personal choices on another person when they won’t even take responsibility for their own choices that allows the practice they want to outlaw to exist in the first place.

When you choose to enter a bar that allows smoking you are voluntarily putting yourself at risk of secondhand smoke, no? Nobody is forcing you to go there. You have every right in the world to refuse to enter. If you do *choose* to drink/eat at a bar that allows smoking then isn’t that choice in of itself both enabling and endorsing the bar owner’s choice to allow smoking on his property?

That’s what I don’t get. How people can feel entitled to mandate their personal choices on another person when they won’t even take responsibility for their own choices that allows the practice they want to outlaw to exist in the first place.

Trust me, people's own inconsistencies never cease to amaze me.

If passed as a bill, the State legislature makes a decision call based upon (hopefully) a totality of the circumstances. Here, I think they are focused more on the siphoning of state public health dollars into the back end of the problem (hospital costs) than they are people's never-ending ability to act against their own self-interest.

I'm with you, people often act inconsistently with their own stated preferences or beliefs, but I don't think see that changing. The point is (1) the state has legitimate power to outlaw smoking; (2) if exercised, it stands on solid footing as a public health measure; and (3) it's most likely to reduce public money funneled into health costs.

Smoking is a workers rights issue. Just like all other unsafe work environments

When you choose to enter a bar that allows smoking you are voluntarily putting yourself at risk of secondhand smoke, no? Nobody is forcing you to go there. You have every right in the world to refuse to enter. If you do *choose* to drink/eat at a bar that allows smoking then isn’t that choice in of itself both enabling and endorsing the bar owner’s choice to allow smoking on his property?

That’s what I don’t get. How people can feel entitled to mandate their personal choices on another person when they won’t even take responsibility for their own choices that allows the practice they want to outlaw to exist in the first place.

same can be said that if smoking is not allowed in bars you have a right as a smoker not to go..you are voluntarily walking into an establishment where you know that you must smoke on the patio outdoors..

so you're all about taking the rights away from people just because you don't like smoke? it should be left up to the owner of the establishment to allow or not allow smoking. if they allow smoking and you don't like it, go somewhere else... freedom of choice. with all these laws banning smoking, the smokers don't have a choice and essentially have lost the right to smoke.

Oh dear God give it a rest. Are you standing on the corner in your tea party outfit waving a Don't Tread on Me flag? Crimony.

Oh dear God give it a rest. Are you standing on the corner in your tea party outfit waving a Don't Tread on Me flag? Crimony.

nope, im a non smoker. i just don't like the government telling me what i can and can't do in a private establishment. the decision should be left to the owner, period

nope, im a non smoker. i just don't like the government telling me what i can and can't do in a private establishment. the decision should be left to the owner, period

You do realize that second hand cigarette smoke exposure is potentially lethal over time? What do you have against the government outlawing depraved and murderous public activity? It bothers me to no end when people smoke around me.

I simply don't buy your argument that this is a liberty issue.

You do realize that second hand cigarette smoke exposure is potentially lethal over time? What do you have against the government outlawing depraved and murderous public activity? It bothers me to no end when people smoke around me.

I simply don't buy your argument that this is a liberty issue.

I believe the definition of liberty includes the clause...."as long as it harms no one". Not only is second hand smoke harmful, there's new data that third hand smoke is as well, and it's especially harmful to children.

Of course I'd like people to stop spraying poisons on their lawns and fertilizing them, as that poisons my water supply and kills the beneficial insects along with the harmful ones. I've got a snowball's chance in hell on that one.

haven't heard of it before, what is 3rd hand smoke?

Oklahoma has one of the highest smoking rates in the country.

Almost every other state has tougher smoking laws and there is a tremendous amount of real-life data that demonstrates after a brief adjustment period, no bars or restaurants are adversely affected.

Countries like Ireland and England -- where smokey pubs have been a way of life for centuries -- have banned smoking in all bars and restaurants and seem to be doing just fine. Even France has a similar ban.

Living in California, we have some of the toughest laws anywhere and were first to implement them way back in the 90's. You'd be amazed how quickly people adapted and how there was very little need for enforcement. There was a big campaign to educate and then everyone just changed their behavior.


I am sure that at some point I will move back to Oklahoma, at least on a part-time basis. But I can tell you I'd be much less likely to do so until they change these laws.

Once you are used to these types of bans -- and they seem to be virtually everywhere other than Oklahoma -- it's almost impossible to go back. I'm sure most people who live elsewhere would see the liberal smoking laws as a negative when considering the state.

Another reason I'm glad I switched to e-cigs.

I have always thought that it was intrusive to make laws banning smoking, largely because I used to be a Denny's rat, drinking coffee and smoking while studying or writing until the wee hours of the morning. However, factually speaking, it's not an invasion of rights to say that this can't be done in publicly shared enclosed spaces. It's not constitutionally protected, as speech is, and there's nothing that comes of being surrounded by smoke, whether you're a smoker or a nonsmoker, that is anything but detrimental.

A smoking area/patio is just fine, so long as it prevents the nonsmoking parties from having to be exposed to it. Even when I was a cigarette smoker, I didn't like bathing in a cloud of other smokers' emissions.

For Penn & Teller Bull$hit fans:

A4TFvKvQBjk

(mnbsfw)

Out here, you wouldn't believe how strict some communities are getting. Here are some examples:


Anywhere on state beaches and parks.
Many cities do not allow on restaurant/bar patios.
Some cities do not allow anywhere in public; including such places as open shopping centers.
Santa Monica recently passed a law where you cannot even smoke on your OWN balcony or patio. (Due to the density of apartments and condos, smoke from one person's private outdoor space will always drift into another's.)




Some of these are probably too restrictive but this is the trend everywhere.

I can see the apt thing, that is one of the reasons given for not allowing people to grill on their patio at my place, but at least 15 feet away from the building (something about fire code too)...but it is rarely enforced.

I do understand the effects of second hand smoke, but I make the choice to go into that bar and be around it. It's just as simple for someone to choose to not go into that bar because of the smoke and go some place that is smoke free. If governments keep banning things, where does it stop? That's my main concern.
Oh, and anything is potentially lethal... too much water, too much sun exposure, too much Micky D's. The mortality rate of humans is holding steady at 100%.
good debate... except for a little name calling

The primary reason for the smoking bans in bars and restaurants is to protect the people that work there.

Yes, it is their choice to work in that industry but the government does protect employees in virtually every field, who also have a choice. Tons and tons of restrictions about exposing employees to hazardous materials and conditions can be cited.

Our labor laws are not based on: "You don't want to be exposed to something proven to be deadly, get another job."


And of course, there are tons of people that make decent money working in these types of establishments that can't simply find something with equal pay, hours, etc.

Larry, I think that's where one's honey was in a meeting all day with smokers and you pick it up when honey comes home with smoke in her clothes hair and even her ear and flops into your lap for a big long stinky hug and some of it rubs off on ya. Could be wrong, and all in all, there are surely worse ways to have nicotine inflicted on someone.

Oklahoma Lawmaker Kills Smoking Ban Bill


OKLAHOMA CITY -

A bill that would have allowed individual cities to ban indoor smoking was snuffed out in the state legislature.

But now the lawmaker who killed the measure is taking some heat.

Oklahoma City is one of 11 cities who are interested in banning smoking in all indoor buildings.

http://www.news9.com/story/17518235/smoking-ban-bill-in-oklahoma-killed-in-legislature

I'm a cigar smoker so a ban wouldn't affect me that much but I still think it should be the business owners decision on to allow smoking or not. Not sure a beer garden type of area outside would still work under a smoking ban law.

I'm a cigar smoker so a ban wouldn't affect me that much but I still think it should be the business owners decision on to allow smoking or not. Not sure a beer garden type of area outside would still work under a smoking ban law.

okc had no interest in banning patio/outdoor smoking .. at least not at this time

I'm a cigar smoker so a ban wouldn't affect me that much but I still think it should be the business owners decision on to allow smoking or not. Not sure a beer garden type of area outside would still work under a smoking ban law.

Tons of successful ones in cities/states with very tough bans.

Cigar smoking is under threat as well. Right now Washington is trying to come up with a bill that would outlaw walk-in humidors from businesses, mail order cigars as well as other things. It's a scary time to be a small business right now. Big Brother continues to try and control every aspect of our lives.

I loathe smoking. Always have. Always will. As far as I'm concerned, they can take all the smoking materials on the planet and aim them for the sun. But I also know that's not going to happen.

But if someone wants to smoke in a public place, I have a really hard time rationalizing the idea that doing so should make them a criminal.

Private place? Such as a restaurant? Owner's call. These days, the market will probably push them toward not permitting it, because I remember walking into places that did allow it, hated the smell, then walked out. Lots of people did. Owner realized customers didn't want smoking there, they either banned it or moved the smoking area to a different portion of the restaurant.

There *has* to be a point at which freedom still means your free to do something. If someone wants to light up a cigarette in a park, do we have nothing better to do than to translate him into a criminal? And if public places represent the next migration of the line between public policy and private behavior and the degree to which government can intrude on the other, then when will it become the purview of government to intrude into private homes and ban smoking there, as well? Are we going to, say, start arresting people for cooking hamburgers in their homes because someone trotted out a study that declared hamburgers were "bad" for you?

Sure, that example seems absurd (although, I suspect, not to some in this thread). But thirty years ago, the notion of making a criminal out of someone walking down the street and smoking a cigarette was asinine, too, but here we are, debating essentially that *very* topic.

Government control of our lives has to stop somewhere. Eventually, for any given issue, someone can invariably come up with a really, really good reason to ban someone from doing practically anything, and it doesn't bother you because it isn't your thing, and you've wrapped yourself in a cloak of piety that only grandiose self-righteousness can convey. But remember, too, that every day that line gets pushed a little further out, the chances that your personal ox gets gored increase exponentially. There has to be a day when we say that the conceptual notion of freedom trumps someone else's "really, really, really, good reason" to ban something.

I understand and agree that smoking is bad for you. My uncle smoked like a chimney for years, and ended up having a heart attack, and later, a stroke (although smoking was but one ingredient in that result). I understand studies about second-hand smoke. I understand worker protection (and the notion Pete cited is, in my view, not that far away from the concept that everyone is entitled to a job, but that's another discussion). But there comes a point when governments have to realize there is a cap to their ability to control and dominate under the guise of "protecting" you, even from "yourself."

Realize that's not a popular POV, but its an honest one. Maybe its just a little shred of libertarian in me emerging :)

Private place? Such as a restaurant? Owner's call. These days, the market will probably push them toward not permitting it, because I remember walking into places that did allow it, hated the smell, then walked out. Lots of people did. Owner realized customers didn't want smoking there, they either banned it or moved the smoking area to a different portion of the restaurant.


A restaurant is not a private place, it is very much a public space. Unless you are a club, where members pay to be a apart of it (ie country club), then restaurants and bars are public places. Therefore, imo you shouldnt be able to toxify the public air space by smoking. Us and good ol Tennessee are the only 2 states that dont agree.

And it has been shown that business increases at places that go non smoking.

A restaurant is not a private place, it is very much a public space. Unless you are a club, where members pay to be a apart of it (ie country club), then restaurants and bars are public places. Therefore, imo you shouldnt be able to toxify the public air space by smoking. Us and good ol Tennessee are the only 2 states that dont agree.

And it has been shown that business increases at places that go non smoking.

And we disagree quite stridently on that point. External studies may show his business will increase, but the fact that someone else "knows better" about his business shouldn't trump the ability for him to make a decision even if a third party doesn't think its in his own best interest.

Sorry, Smoking Sucks.

And we disagree quite stridently on that point. External studies may show his business will increase, but the fact that someone else "knows better" about his business shouldn't trump the ability for him to make a decision even if a third party doesn't think its in his own best interest.

Im not using the idea that business has shown to increase as my argument, because it may not be true for every establishment. Its really just an incentive.

The basic premise of my argument is that bars and restaurants are public spaces, and you shouldnt be allowed to taint the air of indoor public spaces.

Sorry, Smoking Sucks.

Agree completely, which is what makes arguing for the smoker so very, very frustrating for me! I *hate* it. But in the grand scheme of things, there are worse things we should criminalize.

nm

workers rights issue

since it's a workers' rights issue... nannies, housekeepers, landscapers and maintenance workers all have the right to prevent me from smoking in my own home? -M

I think a primary cause of second-hand-smoking-related health issues is worrying too much about what causes second-hand-smoking-related health issues. I would suggest some sort of "mood-elevator"/"SomaBraveNewWorld-esque" prescription medication to counter these self-fullfilling psychosomatic ailments, but those lawyer vs. drug-company ads on TV regarding the side effects freak me out too much to do so.

since it's a workers' rights issue... nannies, housekeepers, landscapers and maintenance workers all have the right to prevent me from smoking in my own home? -M

shhhhhhhhh, they will hear you, and then it will be on.

since it's a workers' rights issue... nannies, housekeepers, landscapers and maintenance workers all have the right to prevent me from smoking in my own home? -M

Private space. Different from a restaurant or bar, which is a public space. Quite a difference and I don't think a nanny would have much of an argument.

Private space. Different from a restaurant or bar, which is a public space.

as to workers' rights: how is it different? why do these workers have any less of a right to have a healthy working environment than any other?

as to it being a 'private space': since your argument hinges on 'public' versus 'private' spaces, could you provide your definition of those terms? what makes a space 'public' or 'private?' -M

I'm thinkin' each and every one of those workers visiting your property should demand Certificates of Lead Abatement and Asbestos Absence. They could all be Certified by The Department of Labor, paid maybe $10 per Violation Report, and thereby not only increase Public Awareness of Bad Stuff, but reduce the Unemployment Rate exponentially!

Maybe there could even be some sort of Five Reports Equals Permanent Green Card . . . Citizenship for Ten promotion . . .

Oh, wait.
That's as stupid as believing in "second-hand smoke" damage.
Sorry.

Agree completely, which is what makes arguing for the smoker so very, very frustrating for me! I *hate* it. But in the grand scheme of things, there are worse things we should criminalize.

Its a health argument. Same rational used to justify health inspectors, sprinkler systems, occupancy, making employees wash their hands, etc. The libertarian argument is that these things violates owner rights also.

I don't have a problem with a restaurant indoor smoking ban, but I do think outdoor patio smoking ban is dumb. Also, I think their should be an exception to bars since you have to be over 18 or 21 to enter and you should have the mental compacity to know when your in an unhealthy environment and your parents are not dragging you in.

I think a primary cause of second-hand-smoking-related health issues is worrying too much about what causes second-hand-smoking-related health issues. I would suggest some sort of "mood-elevator"/"SomaBraveNewWorld-esque" prescription medication to counter these self-fullfilling psychosomatic ailments, but those lawyer vs. drug-company ads on TV regarding the side effects freak me out too much to do so.

:congrats:

Its a health argument. Same rational used to justify health inspectors, sprinkler systems, occupancy, making employees wash their hands, etc. The libertarian argument is that these things owner violates rights also.

Ahh, yes, but here's the critical difference - smoking is an obvious activity, but the rest you cite for rationale are activities an owner will want to keep secret. Put a different way, if I know going in that someone in that restaurant is smoking, I'd by now have to be crazy not to be aware of all the second-hand smoke hysteria, and at that point *I* make the judgment about whether to go in. I don't get to make the same judgment about an unsanitary kitchen, a fire-prone building, a structurally unsound building, or whether the cook washes his hands after doing his thing in the bathroom. A nefarious owner will work to conceal those things.


I don't have a problem with a restaurant indoor smoking ban, but I do think outdoor patio smoking ban is dumb. Also, I think their should be an exception to bars since you have to be over 18 or 21 to enter and you should have the mental compacity to know when your in an unhealthy environment and your parents are not dragging you in.

Fair enough.

http://billstclair.com/blog/images/smoking-fascism-514x393.jpg

I should be able to go out in public areas and not have to breathe in cigarette smoke. I don't understand why smokers have a hard time understanding this.

I vote we ban whining. If you whine anywhere, anyplace at anytime. The people around you have the right to depants, give a swirly or a purple nurple. Further offenses would require you walk down the street like this guy.


http://thehollywoodprojects.com/2010/07/18/kubrick-4-full-metal-jacket-1987/pyle/