Getting to the slippery slope argument, the reasoning that will be used to ban fatty foods (and it’s already been tried, and I beleive “in force” in NYC in the way of a trans-fat ban) is the “Nanny State”, public health argument.

God help us if we start depending on the Government for our health care, then it truly will be in the public interest as to what I do, what I ingest and how much I do it… I have already seen quite a bit of movement by neo-prohibitionists against my favorite vice. I am glad a few folks are making some sense in discussing lowering the 21 year old drinking age.

What we have here is a conflict among the Libertarian philosophies at work.

My take is that the owner of a private business, who wants to do business in the public sector, must abide by public codes and bylaws. We do not allow a bar to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, or color, nor do we allow them to operate in buildings that are not up to code or sanitary.

No one is forcing a bar owner to operate a public business, but in the best interest of the public, those that choose to do so must observe the laws of the land.

Smokers are not entitled to indulge in their habit anywhere they please. Cigarettes cannot be used properly without spewing harmful chemicals into the air. You simply cannot subject innocent people to that. Your right to smoke in public ends at MY NOSE.

I should be at liberty to go anywhere open to the public and breathe clean air (or at least tobacco-free air, if it’s a blue haze day).

It’s common knowledge that the whole “private club” thing is a ruse to get around archaic blue laws. So-called “private clubs” are still conducting business in the public sector and are subject to the law like anyone else. That point is a non-issue.

Anyone has the freedom to start a smoking establishment–they just can’t do it as a commercial endeavor. Going back to my “smoking should be no more legal than sex” bit, you can screw anyone you want–you just can’t charge for it. Smokers should gather at their houses and smoke like fiends if they want. I don’t have any problem with that.

But I should be able to walk into any public place without beind subjected to tobacco fumes.

My personal take is that I have been to the mountaintop and I have seen the (smoke-free) other side. If the smoking ban is overturned, I will stop shooting segments for Radio Free Charleston in bars that allow smoking, and I won’t publicize shows in those bars in PopCult. I’ve had seven weeks of freedom, now. I can go to the Blue Parrot or The Empty Glass and not have to spend the next three days mainlining allergy medicine. I will NOT go back to the way things were before the ban.

As for smoking outdoors–that should be banned next.

The slippery-slope argument is also bogus. This will not lead to a ban on junk food. You can eat junk food without getting the person next to you fat. That’s another smokescreen to divert from the main issue–there is not one valid reason why smoking should be legal!

Some day in the future, people will look back at the way people smoked in public and consider it barbaric.

That day can’t get here soon enough for me.

Look… The point I am trying to make is that these “zero tolerance” bans are an unnecessary over reach by un-elected bureaucrats. There is a way to allow the entity of “smoking lounges” or even “smoking restaurants”. The current ban extends to private clubs like the Moose Lodge. If smoking were allowed to exist by permit, they would generate even more tax revenue and fill an obvious demand in the marketplace and we would never have to go inside of one…

They didn’t ban cigarettes. How does the smoking ban affect the cigarette tax?

And smokers still have freedom of choice. They can choose to walk outside and smoke.

Rich, the smoking ban isn’t intended to protect the smokers, it’s intended to protect the non-smokers (and employees). Unless scientists discover that it’s possible to transfer second-hand fat from a Big Mac eater to a non-Big Mac eater, your comparison doesn’t hold water. A person eating a cheeseburger isn’t affecting anyone else’s health. A person drinking himself into a stupor isn’t affecting anyone else’s health. The smoking ban isn’t intended to protect the smokers’ health.

I don’t see where Rudy is going too extreme against smokers. He has every expectation and right to be free from smoke while in a public place. I want the same freedom. We simply have a disagreement on what constitutes a public place and also worker protections within smoking establishments.

I have tried to reason with the health department a long-time ago just as they were carving out this slippery slope. They had a stacked house of speakers from every anti-smoking org. in the US, but did not even touch on the real issue of the rights of business owners. All I heard was how terrible smoking is and how someone had an aunt in an iron lung etc. They would not let me speak because I did not call ahead and get on a speakers list, OK… But then they would not let me speak even after all listed speakers were finished and there was still alotted time for speakers as per the agenda. They did not want to hear opposing views. I was there to represent the views of my in-laws who own and operate a restaurant in the area, so I was not just a rabble rouser (though there is nothing wrong with that̷

Oh, look at how much money smokers tax puts in to our infrastucture. Where is the loss of revenue going to come from??? Thin air??

I did not say that the Health Department should be out of the picture here (though I do challenge the fact that they be allowed to enact laws without a roll call of elected officials- (Don’t sublease my rights to an unelected board))The Health Dept. has a responsibility within a certain scope; my beleif is that that they have over-reached. What is the problem with a bar that clearly states that smoking is allowed? You don’t have to go in there or work there! What if the board decides that red meat is unhealthy and restaurants can no longer serve it?

As for your drugs (meth) argument, those are illegal substances, tobacco is not. At least if tobacco was banned as a substance, it would go through an exhaustive legislative process where the legislators had to go “on the record” with their vote.

Do you know how your legislator stands on the smoking issue vs private business issue? I don’t because he/she has insulated themselves behind the Board of Health.

If the State legislature voted down smoking in bars, I may disagree, but at least I have specific recourse in the voting booth.