Reply #43: Because the person who purchases the structure

[Cats Against Frist]

and decides to open a business, can decide whether or not that establishment will be smoking or non-smoking. And the people who go there will decide to participate on the basis of whether or not they would like to attend a joint that has smoking, or one that prohibits it.

Government buildings, fine. Workplaces where people HAVE to be there, fine. Everyplace else is FREEDOM. Freedom to set the rules of your establishment. Freedom to smoke or not smoke. Freedom to attend or not attend.

You are trying to set up a standard wherein nonsmoking is somehow superior. You said that "smokers can choose to smoke or not to smoke," and "I can't choose not to inhale their smoke."

Here's the deal, in case you don't know. There are few simple pleasures in this big and complicated world that we have. For some people, it's chocolate cake. For some people, it's giving a birthday party for their kids. For some people, it's buying a new car. For some people it's sex, and FOR SOME PEOPLE, IT'S HAVING A GODDAMN WHISKEY SOUR WITH A CIGARETTE IN THE DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT OF ONE'S CHOICE WITH MEMBERS OF ONE'S OTHER LIKE-MINDED SOCIAL GROUP.

People who don't like to smoke can open non-smoking establishments, and people who don't like to smoke can sustain non-smoking establishments by patronizing them, no? And then people who want to participate in the time-tested tradition of smoking and drinking, can support the smoking and drinking establishments.

It's really alarming to hear people suggest that city-wide smoking bans are "OK." Authoritarians are authoritarians, left or right, remember that. You don't like smoking. They don't like abortion. Everybody can make an argument. I have one: Freedom.