Muscatine

Pollution aside, the underlying issue here is individual rights.  The primary right that is the foundation for all others is the right to property.  That seems counter-intuitive and most folks would say the right to life is the primary right, so allow me to explain:

Individual sovereignty, basically, is the concept that you own yourself; you are your own property.  Therefore, you enjoy the right to full use and control of your own mind and body.  Thus, without agreement, no one else holds any right over those uses.  This is why no one has the right to kill you.  This is why no one has the right to make you a slave.  And so forth.  Moral arguments aside, only you have the right to allow yourself to be killed or enter into servitude, etc.  Individual sovereignty--the right to the property of yourself--is the root of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

As a result of individual sovereignty, all other rights are rooted in the right to property.  You not only have the right to preserve your own life, but you have the right to not have your property (yourself included, remember!) molested by the government or others (criminals, for example).  This is the right to liberty.  You have the right to pursue happiness as a result of property rights, as purchasing a house, a boat, a fishing rod, a Coke, a dog, etc., may make you happy.

As a result of the supremacy of the property right, the government has NO say in what you do in and on your own property providing that a condition is met:

* Your actions may not infringe upon anyone else's rights involuntarily. 

That is to say, for example, that you may listen to your stereo as loud as you wish.  You may willingly gather in groups and listen to your stereo as loud as you wish.  However, if your neighbor does not agree to listen to your loud stereo, their right to peace and quiet trumps your right to listen to your stereo.  As the brilliant Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said, "[t]he right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." 

This is the foundation of American law.

As the government may not tell people what to do with their property providing that people who are not the property owners have the option to come and go as they please; i.e. they may chose to leave or not come at all, the property owner may do as he wishes on that property--including smoking and allowing others to smoke.  There is NO public safety and health risk whatsoever to people who are not present on the property. And as people have the choice not to enter the property in question, or leave it at will, there are NO rights violations whatsoever.

The property owner may allow smoking as he wishes, and as long as he does so, those on the property may smoke as they wish with the property owner's blessing.  Those who do not smoke may avoid the property and may instead patron another property instead.  Similarly, a non-smoker may open their own non-smoking facility and neither smokers nor the government have any say in it.   If a smoker doesn't like a non-smoking policy set forth by the property owner, he has the right to leave and go elsewhere.

I know all this is difficult for some to understand, as we've been raised or conditioned to believe that the government exists to solve our social ills.  However, it does not.  The government's sole purpose is to protect the rights of the individual--and it must do so by protecting our individual sovereignty, and thus our property rights.  It may do this in many ways, all of which are expressly written in the Constitution, but one of those ways cannot and should never be by infringing the rights of one group to appease another group.  In this case, smokers and non-smokers.  Such things are called "mob rule" and should never be allowed in this nation.

Letting the government legislate smoking is opening the door for other potential future rights violations.  It is tantamount to allowing the government to tell you what you can and cannot eat, what you can or cannot watch on TV, what kinds of books you may or may not read, whether or not you may or may not have dogs, guns, wireless telephones, or whatever.

Live and let live.  You do your thing and I'll do mine.  It's the American way.

And no, I do not smoke. 

Nedl, I disagree on the guns comment. If you want to go and shoot animals because it's fun then i could care less. My friend and I go trap shooting every once in a great while - it's a good way to do something outdoors. But I believe in smart gun controls, like not giving guns to people who might rob me with them.

As for city buses and industrial factories - I'm for cleaning them up too. I've got nasty pictures of GPC clouds at night on a calm day.... makes me feel really sorry for everyone that lives nearby. I think we should require buses and cars and etc to be more clean also with better standards requirements.

What's wrong with having 2 inch long grass instead of 1 inch? I don't mind mowing less often - save the city some money as long as it still looks decent.

And I might argue that you can take any drug you need to so long as you aren't hurting someone else. It's imperitive in our government that we consider that other's rights are just as equal as our own. It's not really me that's bothered by smoking so significantly - my grandmother smokes and I still spend time with her at her house. But the people who are bothered shouldn't have to worry about smoke wherever they go.

Now, there's a lot of small arguments here - the 'rights' of business owners, etc. But if no businesses allow smoking then no business are going to lose business.... so it can't possibly hurt the business owner, no? Economically speaking, cigarettes hurt everyone. They cause increased cancer rates and more, increasing health care/insurance costs for everyone - there is scientific evidence showing all the harm cancer causes.

Let's say "John" doesn't like smoking.

Yes John does not get dragged into a busines that allows smoking against his free will. But John has the same right to not have to work his life around someone else's decision. If there is one bowling alley in town and they allow smoking, what's John's option? He has every right to go bowling on his terms, when he wants to. So your argument that Jack can smoke on his terms, when he wants to is the same sort of thing. Now we come to the question, who's rights are stronger. In this case, John's rights are stronger because 1) his action doesn't hurt anybody else, 2) John can't bowl at home, but Jack can smoke at home, 3) Jack's action, smoking, has the most negative externalities.

And so in every legal and economic and moral sense, the right of the nonsmoker trumps that of the smoker.

I feel you deserve a reason why I stated I'd not vote for you. You said "But I believe in smart gun controls, like not giving guns to people who might rob me with them".

Now, that's a typical Obama type statement. Saying something that really says nothing. We have smart gun laws on the books. I'm in favor of enforcing those. No new ones are needed.

Your 'all or nothing' ban on smoking tells me what I said before. Selfishness and greed. Applying those two traits to any idea that comes along spells trouble.