This is just so much fun to watch.

The capitalism argument doesn't quite work in this case. A restaurant is a private business, but if it permits smoking then its exposing its customers and employees to second-hand smoke, which has been shown to cause cancer.

Now, if the restaurant is prepared to stick a few billion dollars in a reserve fund somewhere to cover the costs of lawsuits against it in years to come, there might be a good argument. But most restaurants aren't in a position to do that.

Is anyone forcing you at gun point to go into the restaurant?

Exactly.

You don't have to be a capitalist to respect this basic level personal choice. By going into a restaurant that allows smoking, you're basically signing a mutual agreement that you will eat in an environment that could potentially contain such smoke, and potentially endanger to your health. If you don't like it, then go to a place that doesn't allow smoke, or to a non-smoking designated area.

I personally think the dangers of second-hand smoke are really hyped up. I mean yeah, I probably wouldn't immerse children in it; but to adults it wouldn't hurt much unless it triggers some health condition specific to them. Hell, I believe most of the top oldest people alive today are smokers.

But, basically, if people want to blacken their own lungs, then let them. And if you don't want to breathe in that smoke, then go somewhere else, it's not that hard. There's an argument that smoking infringes on other people's liberty to breathe clean air. It's a clever argument, but it's pretty weak considering you're 'signing' this mutual agreement when you decide to engage in a transaction in a restaurant or bar. But it's actually the other way around; passing such laws infringes on people's liberty to do what they want with their own bodies.

By swimming in a lake without a lifeguard, you're taking a risk to your health, and you're essentially signing this mutual 'agreement' that you're swimming at your own risk. And if a loved one drowns, you don't sue the person that owns the property; I mean it's just ridiculous.

People need to take risks. You can't live in a bubble.

I think we should take a close look at the issue...

The big issue I hear coming out of the non-smoking crowd is that second hand smoke causes cancer. True. Looking at the numbers second hand smoke, with prolonged exposure, can cause cancer.

Here are some interesting facts from the cancer aficionados, the American Cancer Society.

1 - Nearly 560,000 people are expected to die of cancer in 2007.
a - One third is expected to be tobacco related.
b - One third is expected to be obesity related.
2 - The expected death toll of cancer caused by second hand smoke in 2007 is around 3000.

Unlike other advocates, I will be more than willing to provide a link to the full source instead of providing vague references to state agencies. I would also argue that ACS is the best source for cancer information. http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/...7PWSecured.pdf

Second hand smoke causes around .5% of cancer deaths in America. I'm so glad that we are complaining about .5%. One advocate, in her advocacy, states "Stop giving innocent people cancer." If we are to do this, then we should be honest about the causes of cancer. If we want to stop giving innocent people cancer, in addition to cigarettes we should ban fast food.

While there has been legal debate back and forth about what is public and what is private, I'm going to speak for a moment about what SHOULD define public and private. The definition should be based upon ownership. It is a public place if taxpayers as a whole own it, it is private if independently owned. I would even be willing to go one more step. I would be willing to say that any place where children are permitted that provides a service is a public place. That excludes establishments that cater to vice. BARS specifically. The bar owner should be able to permit whatever legal activity he wants in his bar. Anything less is the government determining what is vice socially acceptable for the owner.

I don't think that the 'public' should have any rights to determine what legal activities take place in a privately owned establishment. Not until they file a schedule C for that business on their tax return should they have a say about private business. If the public wants a 'public' bar that prohibits smoking, they should advocate for the state to open a non-smoking bar, not the state to force business owners to become non-smoking.

We are teetering on the brink of something very frightening here. We are on the brink of the government determining what is socially acceptable and enforcing it. I don't want a government to have that much power in my personal life thanks and I don't think government should be telling me by force of law what legal activity is socially acceptable. This is a slippery slope on which we are willing to place personal rights. What is to follow? Restaurants can't sell fatty foods cause we don't like obesity and we're scared of cancer? You can't by a funnel cake at the fair? What's more American than that? Apple pie but not for long cause it has too much sugar in it and the crust is teeming with carbohydrates that could cause obesity and lead to cancer. "Tofu! Replacing Apple pie since 2025." I can't wait.

It may be cold, but it's statistically true. The number of cancer deaths caused by second hand smoke is not significant enough to merit special laws that violate the personal choice of at least 157,000 (the estimated number of cancer deaths in 2007 caused by direct tobacco use). Sadly 3000 people annually shouldn't get government protection and rights until other minority groups are protected by the government. We can start with the 800,000 fetuses aborted each year. They should deserve some minority protection with the government enforcing their rights. What about the estimated 6 million homosexuals (I'm using a conservative estimate of 2% of the US population)? The government should enforce their rights for individual health too! When those two groups are addressed (because they are statistically more significant) then we can focus on second hand smoke.

Like slavery and abortion, the right asserted by smokers is the right to infringe upon the rights of others. We've all heard the statistics on the dangers of second-hand smoke, I'm sure. Shouldn't a person's right to throw a punch stop where another's nose begins? Is a person's right to have a few seconds of pleasure wherever they please really worth the risk of death and disease to their fellow human beings?

Yes, slavery and abortion are closely intertwined with people who smoke. Has it ever occurred to you to just not go where people are smoking? There have been nonsmoking areas in resteraunts and public areas for years.

Oh believe me, that's what I have done in the past. I'll use different entrances and exits if people are smoking near them or cover my mouth and nose while holding my breath for half a minute if going past smokers can't be avoided. I'll go 50 feet out of my way to avoid smokers.

With me, even though I'm in great physical shape and am trying out for the minor leagues, I have always been very sensitive to cigarette smoke. One time at a theme park in my high school years I was walking along and suddenly had a severe choking fit where I had trouble breathing for the next 10 minutes or so. The problem was because of a smoker some 30-40 feet away.

Of course, Illinois passed a recent public smoking ban, which makes me VERY happy

Ever watched that commercial of a guy smoking with a mouse licking some juice in the other frame? I just turn away from that. Seeing that guy smoke like a chimney drives me nuts.