I’m truly conflicted on the whole issue.  Philosophically, I don’t like the government or the majority telling me what to do with my body or my business, but, as a non-smoker, I like the wider range of options now available to me.  I’m also a big believer in both the Law of Unintended Consequences and the need for honesty in government.  Forcing smokers outdoors on days like today doesn’t really bother me, but when the weather’s nice, I miss the “good old days” of relatively-smoke-free patios and decks.  I also have a problem with government following a parallel path of both raising taxes on tobacco and increasing restrictions on its use.  Either it’s a dangerous product that should be kept out of the consumers’ hands or it’s a safe product that shouldn’t be seeing increasing restrictions.  We’ve reduced VOC’s in paint and we’re on track to eliminate most incandescent bulbs, so what’s so hard about making tobacco, a known carcinogen, illegal, as well?  Could it be that it’s both highly addictive (but so is meth and herion) and a cash cow for cash-strapped governments (ding, ding, ding!)?

Here is what I believe about SHS.  It’s not healthy for you.  Thats not the same as saying its unhealthy.  There is risk, but its far less then actually driving (well anywhere).  For instance, they like to tell you that the chance of getting lung cancer is 30% higher for those exposed to SHS. 

That number quite frankly is on the high end if you take all the worst studies.  Now that sound like a scary number.  When you push that in front of the general public it scares them.  Why, because they don’t understand probability.  You see, your chance of getting lung cancer from all sources is something like 1-10,000.  If you spend your adult working life and your home life with SHS your risk goes from 1-10,000 to 1.3-10,000. 
Think of it this way.  If you buy a second lottery ticket you have increased your odds of winning by 100%.  That doesn’t mean you should start spending the money (unless you think that walking into a smoky bar will increase your chance of lung cancer by 30%).

At what point do you want the government to regulate products such as tobacco.  Coffee and soda both contain caffiene which is highly addictive.  Neither are very good for you (although coffee has many health benefits).  Should the government ban those as well?  (A doctors group has proposed a tax increase on sugary soda to help curb its use.  They also proposed that all the taxes go to them you know,to help offset cost). 

>>Are you proposing a ban on alcohol and red meat.<<

Of course not. You can sit next to someone and eat prime rib all day and that other person will not get colon cancer as a result of the proximity. You can sit in your house and chain smoke all day and that would also not affect others. That is the point.  

The majority of bars are indeed open to the general public. You need to get this through your head, the case law is older than you are! The ADA can’t make you have a wheelchair accessible restroom in your residence but it’s required if a restroom is provided to the public.

That’s my point.  Everything has some level of danger – too much water can kill you, but you sure can’t live without it.  Personally, I don’t like the smell of cigarette smoke, nor do I like the fact that it makes my clothes and hair stinky.  Before the bans, I was satisfied with non-smoking sections, enjoyed patronizing establishments that chose to be smoke free and avoided establishments that were too smoky.  Now that the bans are in place, I, as part of the majority, have more options, and I like that.  Should I fight against them out of principle or should I just sit back and enjoy a better life?  Even if it means infringing on the assumed “rights” of smokers?  I lean libertarian, but I also have seen many abuses occur in the “free market”.  Obviously, there is no one set standard for what is the “right” amount of government intervention.  Both Prohibition and the 55 mph speed limit are examples of government gone too far and the people pushing back, successfully.  Bottom line, I have no clear-cut answer.

But pollution from autos is much more prevalent and dangerous, where is the outrage against big oil? This whole discussion mirrors the same problem I have with abortion foes, when a child is born, what I hear is screw them, we don’t care what happens to that child, no health care, no education, no food, no problem.
I’m a nonsmoker so I don’t have a horse in the smoking outcome, but continually dumping on smokers is absurd. The same principles and concerns should be applied with the same vigour to other equally dangerous pollutants.
This hypocrisy of philosophy is broadcast for all to see. But of course this is America, it doesn’t matter what you say, no matter the truth.  Dante (The Divine Comedy) in his 8th circle of fraud condemns the sowers of discord and hypocrites.
I guess what matters is that it is feasible to bully smokers in America today, but not so much big oil, so the self righteous do so without compromise and without restraint or morals. Welcome to present day America.

LIke many non-smoking advocates, you raise the alleged health issues as the basis of your argument in much the same way GMichaud raises the alleged health issues to bolster his claims against the automobile.  The real issue, with both, aren’t the alleged health issues, it’s that you all simply don’t like smoke/smokers and cars/drivers, respectively, and you’re grasping for tangential arguments to justify why life should change to match your own personal preferences.

I don’t like being around smokers, either, but there are times when I choose to be around them because they are friends, clients or customers.  In an “it’s all about me” world, there would be no smoking and no speed limits, but the world ain’t all about me, it’s about learning how to coexist with everyone else out there.  I’m sure that there are things that I do that drive other people crazy, and I wouldn’t want the government, through the tyranny of the majority, telling me what to do or not do, especially if it’s based on unproven, debatable, “scientific” studies.

“Once again, I do not care if people smoke. Don’t do it around me. Why is this hard to grasp?”
You seem to presume that you have a right to be in the bar in the first place.

There is hard scientific evidence that smoking can cause cancer in smokers.  There is less conclusive evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer – many environmental issues are potential causes (asbestos, general air polution, hereditary propensity, etc.) and it’s hard to isolate a single cause.  I don’t like being around smokers because they smell bad; I’ve reconciled myself to the fact that something will eventually kill me.  If it’s lung cancer, do I blame my parents, my former coworkers or riding my bike in urban traffic?

You’re all welcome to have academic discussions of whether and how dangerous second-hand smoke is, but for me personally, I don’t need scientific studies to know how it affects me.  My nose immediately starts to fill with mucus, my eyes water, I begin to cough and eventually is gets so bad I begin to sneeze uncontrollably.  I will feel like shit for at least a day afterwords.  I will not tolerate being around cigarette smoke anymore, because it makes me sick almost immediately.

One thing I agree with Bill on: I will not patronize bars that allow smoking; they can earn their living off of cigarette smokers because they sure as hell aren’t getting any money from me.  In fact, I only patronize a couple of places that allowed smoking until the ban went into effect; I reward establishments that went non-smoking earlier with my business.

I actually went to Pat’s this week to check it out and see why business might be down.  There was a respectable crowd in there, but honestly, the place didn’t really provide anything that special that I couldn’t get somewhere else.  Also, the food wasn’t really that good, but I will say the staff was very friendly.  Could that possibly be contributing to the decline in business?  Have they made ANY effort to market themselves after they lost smoking customers?  Many people rave about their fried chicken, but have they made any effort to capitalize on that.  You know, some neighborhood institutions can get tired after sixty plus years in business.

I agree completely with your second paragraph.

Intellectually and personally, I would have no problem if the government instituted an outright prohibition on tobacco products, given their well-documented cancer risks and their addictive properties.  But I also know how well (or poorly) prohibitions work – look no further than efforts to outlaw other drugs, be they alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, meth or heroin.  Users will always find a way to score.  Given that reality, my libertarian side kicks in, and it seems to make more sense to regulate and tax than it does to outlaw and incarcerate.  And reading the Post-Dispatch’s coverage of our state’s budget woes reinforces that position, with 40%+ of the people incarcerated in our prisons there for drug crimes.

That said, the bans do seem to be both self-enforcing and successful in modifying most smokers’ behavior – stepping outside to smoke is now an accepted fact of life in most public places.  The challenges that remain are primarily those venues that mix addictions – smoking and drinking and/or smoking and gambling.  These addictive, potentially self-destructive activities complement each other, so it’s hard to argue that one’s better or worse in the long run.  What it boils down to is arguing about how your addiction impacts my ability to enjoy my addiction.  I’d much rather vote with my feet and my money when it comes to bars and casinos.  My drink of choice is a beer - a Bud is a Bud, no matter where it’s served, and all our local brewpubs are smokefree.  If some corner bar wants to cater to smokers, so be it, I’ll just go somewhere else!

Congratulations on an informative blog, Steve, and for the “healthy” discussion it generated! There were too many comments for me to read them all but I’ll just add a few notes of my own. 

The evidence is incontrovertible, to my mind, that ventilation is not an adequate alternative to a place being entirely smoke-free. That is not just based on the scientific literature but on studies that our organization, Missouri GASP, has undertaken or funded. There may be some debate about what level of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure may cause lung cancer or other potentially fatal diseases in the long run but typically, if a known carcinogen can easily be removed from the environment at little cost, that is the course taken with little public debate. 

It is because nicotine is highly addictive for many smokers, and they have been persuaded that it’s their right to smoke, that we have had opposition from smokers to smoke-free air laws.

SHS is not just a cancer risk but it’s also a public nuisance, and like many others which are regulated or not permitted, it’s reasonable to address it as such. Anyone who is smoke sensitive can attest to it meeting that definition, and it’s especially true for smoke-sensitive asthmatics, for example.

I find Bill Hannegan’s proposal to exempt venues that cater to those 21 and older from smoke-free air laws unacceptable. Here’s the Tennessee law definition of an exempted venue, which Mr. Hannegan is championing as a Missouri statewide law requirement (see http://health.state.tn.us/smokefreetennessee/faq.htm ):

“Venues that restrict access to persons who are 21 years of age or older at all times”

Why should those working in such places have to put up with being exposed to SHS as part of their job description? 

Further, to be consistent, every workplace employing only those 21 and older would also fall under this definition of a venue. Office workplaces, for example, would again be smoking-allowed if you’re going to apply this uniformly!

If you want to smoke, fine, but do it in such a way that you only risk your own health.

Martin Pion, president, MoGASP. http://www.mogasp.wordpress.com