At least she gave your an option shrimp and left the choice up to you. :)

Bars are not public places so the comparison to the government regulating speeds on the highways shows a lack of understanding of the topic.

TParty, I agree wholeheartedly. As long as the government is paying the cost of treating the illnesses linked to smoking, the government can tell us when and where we may smoke.

It's called "the golden rule"--he who has the gold makes the rules. If we don't want the government to legislate no-smoking zones, we should change our laws on disability income so that no one collects money for disabilities resulting from unhealthy, irresponsible behavior.

Very well said!! I agree 100%!!! Leave it up to the owners of restaurants/bars. All smoking, no smoking at all or split the establishment and have a smoking section in a separate area with walls and doors. There are a few places out there that have separate areas and they seem to do the best, customer wise. Also, an added benefit to complete separate areas is children under a certain age aren't allowed in smoking areas, so those who do not have children or have grown children, can eat in peace. Jus sayin'

ICL, I appreciate your posts. Like you, my family and I don't go to bars and nightclubs, so a proposed no-smoking ordinance won't affect us. (Why, I'm so far removed from this issue that I'm tempted to jokingly suggest a compromise: allow smoking in nightclubs, but require employees and customers to wear gas masks.)

My point is that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. To be free from intrusive regulations, we must be willing to take care of the consequences of our actions. If I want to smoke, drink, or partake of transfats, I must make sure that I have enough money set aside to pay for my medical treatment. If I'm expecting other tax payers to take care of me, I shouldn't be surprised or upset if they insist on telling me what to do.

How about letting the business owner who is paying the taxes and license for his or her place of business to decide what is best for their business and then if non-smokers don't want to go there they don't have to? It isn't right for the government to tell people how to run their business. Some businesses may decide they don't want smoking and that is great and it is also great for the ones who do want to allow it. No one is forcing a non smoker to go into an establishment that allows smoking, you are free to stand outside in the cold or heat and look in threw the windows.

Amen to that copperhead.

Thank you SeenitB4! I am a smoker, I do not smoke in my home, nor do I smoke around children and if I am around a friend or family member that I know smoke bothers I will not smoke around them. I have respect enough not to do that. But when we allow government to come into ours live and our businesses and tell us what we can and cannot do that is just wrong, people should be allowed choices. It would be very easy to let the business owners decide and that way the smokers and the non smokers would have places to go. The problem is that the non smokers want it their way or no way and most of the ones bloging in probably do not even frequent bars or night clubs and this most likely will not directly affect them in anyway. Heck, they don't even want people smoking outside, like tobacco is the worst thing they have ever smelled. well apparently they don't get out much because I come in contact with things that smell bad on a daily basis from vehicles that burn diesel to perfumes that offend me. Anotherday was correct, once we allow them to control one thing they will start trying to control another and another. When I go to a bar or club the majority of the patrons do smoke and even the bartenders and waitresses so I wonder how many of these employees they claim to be protecting really want to be protected. It's all about control......

I personally could care less if someone chooses to smoke. Personal freedom is very important to me and is a sacred thing for our country. However if someone's personal choice impacts me directly such as with second hand smoke, there should be restrictions which allow me to go where I please and not suffer the consequences of someone's unhealthy indulgences.

The business owner should be allowed to choose whether or not smoking is permitted. After all, these establishments are for people over the age of 21 that are very capable of making choices. If you do not like smoking, don't go there. It's very simple. It is YOUR choice. These business owners could lose business and revenue if smoking is not permitted. We are not talking about Chuck E Cheese or Golden Corral.We are talking about businesses that most of you opposers will never step foot in to begin with. Next thing you know, you all will demand that bars stop selling alcohol. Let the owners make the decisions, it is their business not yours.

Does seem ridiculous to not have "choice". It's the big deal for reproductive freedom-choice of birth control and abortion, then choice to be hetero or homo- sexual and gay marriage "choice", but you want light up a coffin nail and they want to taser you. If people want to smoke rabbit tobacco or tobacco-why not. I guess eventually only American Indians will only have access to tobacco for their religious ceremonies. LOL. I started smoking a pipe to see if the nicotine would help my ailing memory.

Bizkit, in reply: You're choice to have sex outside of marriage, doesn't include me. Your choice in partners, doesn't include me. Your choice to have an abortion, doesn't include me. Your choice to drink, doesn't include me.
Your choice to eat lard, doesn't make me fat. Your choice to ride without a helmet, doesn't bang my head. Your choice to smoke, includes ME.

Here's the big problem with smoking freedom...the smoker is the only one who is free. You can't smoke near me, without me having to smoke with you. Surely, that isn't too hard to get.

Non smokers cannot always avoid those who would choose to smoke, if there were no restrictions.

And actually, those choices you said that don't include you don't include you directly, but they definitely include you indirectly.

Yes, KSL, the long term cost does for sure. Bar's aren't a problem personally for me, but restaurants, airports, shops, stores, lots of public places, can be necessary for all of us.

And really even those places that aren't necessary, should be available to all for use, not just some. Same thing as requiring handicap accessible buildings, etc. We could say the wheelchair crowd should just stay home.