in the mind of a smoker, being able to breathe in public without choking is a luxury not a right.
and therein lies the heart of the issue. there is private property, where one has no rights, but rather must abide by the laws/policies set by the owner of said private property.
what do we do when we see a business that posts 'no firearms allowed'. we either boycott the business and inform them of why we are not patronizing their place of business, in hopes they will change their policy, and we go our happy way to find a place that recognizes our right to have a gun with us.
now consider why it is that cities/jurisdictions create laws that restrict smoking. business owners typically don't want to restrict it because they feel their business will be hurt by it, right? so whiny people complain enough and the lawmakers decide to take action.
in the end, are businesses really hurt by it? not really.
anchorage had something similar. restaurants had to become 'smoke free', to ensure that those who had to work in those restaurants were 'safe' from 2nd hand smoke. restaurant owners threw fits, saying no one would eat out anymore. turns out they were wrong.
and there were builtin loopholes. a restaurant could classify themselves as a bar (forget how they proved they were a bar that serves food instead of a restaurant that serves alcohol).
or they could completely seperate the smoking and nonsmoking sections so their air supply was not mixed, but both independant. that way, an employer could have his nonsmoking workers in one area, and smoking workers in the smoking section.
