When Government starts to get involved with personal, private decisions, IT SCARES THE HELL out of me!!!!I am a smoking 48 yr old women. About to be a 1st time grandmother. I, along with my daughter and son-inlaw, personally decided to have a smoke free enviroment for my grandchild. It will be up to us, as her family to ensure a smoke free enviroment. And armed and educated with all current data, at legal age she should be able to make her own free personal decisions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am also overweight along with aproximatly 65% of Americans. Are the goig to start a mandated, legal---WEIGH IN?????????? Demand portion control in resturants or NO SECONDS! at the salad bar??!! Really , what is next?????

THe Employees whose health everyones concerned will soon be UNemployed. Because the business cannot compete. Y'all missing that point

OK, I get it now.

Iron workers should not walk on the iron, because they may fall and kill themselves...ban that job. Firefighters should not fight fires, for they may get burned. Nascar should be banned because they may get in a crash and die....Sa=nitary workers may get exposed to toxic wate...and so on.....let's see all of you CLOWNS. It's called choice! If you choose to walk the iron, you might just fall and die, or get burned in a fire or whatever. If you know smoke may hurt you, don't smoke or don't go where it may cause a problem.

Why should the goverment tell a "private business" what they can and can't do. I smoke at my business..which I own, and I tell people if they don't like it leave! If they don't like me, don't do business with me....

Let the business decide if they are smoking or nonsmoking. Then everyone has a choice.

What do thay make things so difficult!

It should be the owners right to choose weather their establishment is smoking or non-smoking. Just put a sign out front that displays smoking or non-smoking.

This way the customers choose to come in or not. Non-smoking people can go find a non-smoking bar. smoking people can find a smoking bar.

If a non-smoker chosse to go into a smoking bar then they have made that decision. And in turn if a smoker decides to go to a non-smoking bar then that was their decision.

This is America and we should always have the choice, Owners and Customers!!

I believe that this can be solved very simply. In Louisiana, a smoking ban was voted into place, but was limited to establishments whose food sales outweighed their liquor sales. Many bars dropped their snack menus to make sure they were within limits to allow drinking and smoking, while family eateries with bars, i.e. Applebees, Outback, etc. had to make a choice to build a seperate enclosed area for smokers at a huge investment cost or cut out smoking altogether. The switch was made and now non-smokers have the choice of dinner and/or drinks, smoke-free, or drinks at a local bar, without food and inhaling second-hand smoke. All businesses were able to make a decision on their own based on these guidelines and the Louisiana citizens were allowed to choose which form of atmosphere that they would frequent. Allowing the businesses and people decide for themselves is better than an all out ban.

Just weighing in as someone who has a severe allergy to the byproducts of cigarette smoke. Even if smoking is banned from the building, the smoke from the people who have stepped out for a smoke will still give me the allergic reaction (nothing serious, of course; my lungs only shut down. I get the same reaction from concentrated exposure to latex and rubber products). My dealing with this type of an allergy is a huge challenge in everyday life. And the more we are exposed to such toxins, the more people will develop these allergies. I find it hard to be sypmathetic with smokers who say non-smokers are taking away their rights. Sorry, but I also have a right to breathe and not have to run to the hopsital because of an allergic reaction. I also realize I don't have the right to tell everyone not to smoke. We just have to figure out a way to accommodate. If a business owner wishes to allow smoking, fine. I just won't go there. But if it's a non-smoking establishment, smokers need to have more respect for the non-smokers. Standing outside the front door, smoking way, causing non-smokers to have to run a gauntlet of smoke, isn't right either. And every time the door is opened, the smoke from outside goes in.

All of us need to stop thinking of only ourselves. I'll respect your rights and expect you to respect mine.

People often go out drinking in groups. Non-first and second hand smokers:

a. Refuse to go to smoking bars with the group?

b. Go along with the group and breath in other's old smoke for the team?

c. People's freedom of choice always tracks their best health interests?

As a non-smoker, I wish it was as easy as "going to a non-smoking bar".  I like to listen to live music, play pool and play tavern poker.  If I want to do any of those things with my friends, I have to suffer through heavy smoke each time.  It would be wonderful if the smoking was limited to an outside patio.  That way everyone could enjoy the entertainment, wait staff would not be affected and smokers could still do their thing.

I am a recent resident in Florida, They have No smoking in all Food serving establishments. Some bars are exempt if food is only a small part of their business.

We've had the smoking ban here in New York (in bars, restaurants, etc.) for the last several years. Yes, initially there was some decline in business but then people got used to the ban and business picked back up for most bar owners. It's a prime example of government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong and people being the stupid sheeple that they are not recognizing that the more they keep on with this "there oughta be a law" crap the more power they give to government and the less liberty they have.

steve is a tool

The only reason cigarettes are legal is the HUGE amount of taxes being produced. Without the taxes they would be illegal in a minute. I smoke about 1 1/2 packs a day,so I am not a non-smoker making this statement. If we are going to have this type of BS over cigarettes, make them completely illegal. Quit screwing around just because the politicians have a great cash cow from the people who are addicted to the nicotine. All you people whining about needing a safe environment need to look at what really matters and focus their attention on cleaning up the REAL problems. Like where is all the chemical waste being dumped, where is the used "clean" nuclear fuel residue going when it is disposed of, the tons of emissions by "clean coal" fired plants. The cigarette issue is a magic act to keep the sheepel misdirected and ignoring the real issues.

In 2008, Nevada voters approved a ballot initiative that prohibited smoking indoors in all bars and restaurants if those establishments served food. Many of those establishments shut down their kitchens in order to comply with the law and minimalize the impact on their businesses. They still saw a decline in revenue because some customers stopped coming in when they stopped serving food. The establishments that chose to continue serving food saw a decline in business because patrons who smoked went elsewhere. Many of these establishments had previously spent 10's of thousands of dollars in upgraded ventilation and filtration equipment to maintain the air quality in the establishment. This protected employees and patrons alike from the effects of second hand smoke. The bottom line is that you're damned if you don't and damned if you do. Just an FYI, I am a smoker who doesn't mind going outside. I don't smoke in my own house, so it doesn't really matter to me personally. I am however, concerned with the job losses and reduced tax revenue to the state that has resulted from this well-intentioned ban.

To CJG1220................You have written EXACTLY what I was thinking ! I agree with every word you said. I am a smoker and I would like to have a choice also. Thanks for telling it like it is !

Looks like they would rather smoke than drink so I figure the at least quit one bad habit.

Again, I guess I must repeat myself for the thickheaded, small brained nictotene -drenched morons that called me a socialist. I am a life long conservative Republican and a strong Christian, (at least I try to be but pro smoking addicts test my Christianity, I must admit.) It is time for smoking advocates to grow up! Smoking Bans are here to stay. They are usually very successful. They are spreading worldwide. Most sane smokers and nearly all nonsmokers support them to one degree or another.

Many of you talk about choice. Smoking was a choice when you were a teenager taking your first drags on a cigarette, but no longer: you are addicted to nicotine (I know this is a big shock). I understand your anger and resentment, but in the good ol' USA only about 20% of the adult population continue to smoke--and that number dwindles daily. Look at a state like Utah that has only 12% of the population smoking.

In the early to mid 70's cigarettes cost about .65 cents a pack, what is the cost now? The cost of cigarettes has a direct coorelation to teenagers smoking: less people are smoking, therefore, your rights as smokers are being chipped away.

My point is that smoking is being attacked because the vast majority of us do not smoke. Worse, for smokers as a minority, 70% of smokers regret the day that they first picked up a cigarette; thus, they tend to passively, or actively support smoking restrictions.

For example, when I first started college, students regularly smoked in the halls. One summer the Dean pointed out that smoking in the buildings on campus actually violated federal law, he had all the ash trays removed. Students stopped smoking in the hall without a fuss (okay, over in the art building it took a bit longer). I actually remember people smoking in the grocery store, or a local department store: when was the last time that happened? Businesses, and industry regularly put restrictions on smoking. Some businesses have even made smoking a reason for termination (mostly hospitals, but a couple of insurance companies as well). It is against the law to smoke in a vehicle that has minors in it in my state.

For smokers to have mounted an effective revolution, they would have had to start 40 years ago. Now, it is too late. You can quit now, or you can quit later, but you will be quitting.

The most dangerous thing in the world is a hypocrite. Non-smokers make statements like "if you want to smoke and you can't in a bar don't go there", "just stay home if you want to smoke". Blah, blah, blah. What they are really saying is that their freedoms/choices/rights are more important than mine. Pick and choose freedom of choice, interesting concept. Wrap your minds around this one. If you want a beer and don't like smoke, stay home. If you want to go out dancing but don't like smoke, take a class at the Y. You are not more important, nor are your rights. Hence the term EQUAL RIGHTS. You have just as much right to not frequent smoking establishments as I have TO frequent them. My son (whom I have NEVER smoked around) has asthma triggered by chemicals in perfumes. Would love to see what would happen if I petitioned for a law to ban perfumes in public areas, since it is a danger to respiratory health. Bah, I can hear it now "NO ONE is gonna tell me I can't wear Channel #5".

In a FREE society it would be up to the owners of the business whether or not smoking is allowed, not the Government!

Oh, and talk about irony. Beer drinking rates nearly 3 times higher statistically as a cause of cancer than cigarettes, so drink on at your smoke-free bars, if nothing else it gives the educated non-drinking smokers like me a good laugh!

Statistics Facts of the Day: As a rule of thumb, an RR (Relative Risk) of at least 2.0 is necessary to indicate a cause and effect relationship, and a RR of 3.0 is preferred.

"As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine"

"My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

"Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." - The National Cancer Institute

"An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist

This requirement is ignored in almost all studies of ETS.

The RR for the claim "Cigarettes cause cancer" ranges from 0.9 to 1.3.

The RR for the claim "Beer causes cancer" equal nearly 3 in all studies.

Following the general rules used in statistics for acceptable statistical inferences; we can NOT claim cigarette smoking causes cancer, but we can claim drinking beer does!

Hmm, do the vapors from beer cause cancer too? OMG, second hand beer cancer! We need to kick all the beer drinkers out of all public places or we all risk dying of cancer! We need to shut down any beer making within 100 miles of our homes or our children will be at risk of breathing the evil poison vapors! (SARCASM)

Sound stupid and over-reactionary? That's how you people sound when you repeat the phony second hand smoke mantras to those of us who have studied statistics and reviewed the data about cigarette smoking.

Did any of you read about all the studies regarding the cost of smokers to society? Surprising results for you NON-smokers; it seems you NON-smokers cost society nearly 35% more than smokers! I want all the extra unjustified fees I have paid in to my medical insurance returned, plus all the extra unjustified taxes I paid on cigarettes.

And I think that non-smokers should pay more into social security, health insurance and Medicare; that would be fair considering that when the non-smokers thought the smokers cost society more, they let everyone charge them more!

Maybe the bar owners should take a look and realize that bar and tavern business NATIONWIDE is down up to 30% because of the economy. Virtually every state that has passed non-smoking ordinances has seen early opponents come over to the other side. The NJ state ban caused business to drop but then it rebounded strongly as a new group of people that never frequented bars because of the smoke, started going for the first time. For the poster that states that non-smokers cost society 35% more than smokers....that's because smokers DIE much earlier than nonsmokers, thus they are not in the system for as long. Cigarettes are the only legal product that when used as intended, causes the death/disease of the consumer.

For all of you who think the smoking bans are great and the higher taxes smokers keep getting hit with are so great (cuts down on so many killing themselves, you know), you better put more thought into this. First off, we smokers, with our tobacco tax money, pay for a whole lot of programs that were designed for non-smokers. And when all smokers are taxed to the point of quitting, who is going to pay for those programs? Not me, because the next thing they will go after is your precious booze, and I don't drink!! haha Have fun paying THOSE taxes!

While I do think the economy is playing some part in people not going out as much, I can attest that this is not the real reason restaurants and bars are losing business. My city passed a non-smoking ordinance that includes all establishments a few years ago. We stopped eating out locally and went to the next town. They passed a ban that just went into effect this month, but excluded bars and bowling alleys. We don't bowl or care for the bar scene, so that still leaves us out. We will no longer be eating out without having to travel at least 30 minutes. If I can't sit and enjoy an after dinner smoke without rushing out the door, I just won't go. Steak and shrimp tastes better at home anyway.

Another point to consider, I have a greater chance of getting caught smoking in a non-smoking establishment than I do drinking and driving. I can go to the local Applebee's and get plastered, get behind the wheel of my car, and drive home, but I can't sit and enjoy an after dinner smoke. Which would you rather deal with, a drunk driver in your neighborhood or sitting in the non-smoking section, WWAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY away from the smokers?

As a way around the unfair cigarette taxes here in Michigan, many have started growing their own tabacco. Surprisingly, it is easier to grow than tomatoes.

Some of us are looking into setting up a non-profit that will grow tabacco, harvest it, and use machines to make cigarettes. It would provide cigarettes to smokers for "free". And just like with public TV, there will be a "recommended" donation to the organization for stated quantities of cigarettes.

The state has jacked the price up so high for cigarettes here in Michigan that a donation of around 25% of the cost at the store will not only cover the organizations cost, but will grow the organization and allow the cutting of the "recommended" donation even more.

And of course, if the Government outlaws tobacco we always have the black market (the People's Free Market). Besides, with Marijuana on it way to legalization, there will be plenty of drug dealers hanging around looking for work.

First of all for all of you B#*@hing about there not being stats to back up the smoking bans then here you go!

What is comes down to is they city screwed the pooch on how they went about this. In order for any smoking ban to work, and not have the bar/restaurants business affected it needs to be a state or county wide ban. This way the only bars/restaurants available to the consumer are non-smoking.

The fact is there are a lot more non-smokers than smokers, and I know a lot of people that refuse to go to bars because of the smoke. These business will attract a much larger demographic once the non-smokers can enjoy going out for an evening without sitting in a smoky bar. They will also still get the business of the smoker because lets face it where else are they going to go.