[hushpad]

No political point at all. I just get so frustrated as private business owners are forced to change what goes on in their businesses due to political correctnes BS<<

I think you've got something when it comes to property owners. Most restaurants now have non-smoking signs posted at the entrances, so how come if the restaurant ALLOWS smoking, they cant just place a sign outside saying so?

Smokers would not be FORCED to inhale nasty old cigarette fumes and smokers would not be FORCED outside and denied service simply because they are partaking in a LEGAL activity.

BTW, I believe that second-hand smoke stuff causing others cancer when casually smelled in a restaurant environment has not been scientifically proven any more than global warming has.

[Diverdogz]

BTW, I believe that secondhand smoke stuff causing others cancer when casually smelled in a restaurant environment has not been scientifically proven any more than global warming has.

I don't know whether secondhand smoke causes cancer or not....I'm inclined to believe it possible it does if one is exposed to sufficient quantities (i.e. live with an indoor smoker or work at a smokey bar), and the risk is very minimal if one is only occasionally exposed at a restaurant or something.

Florida banned cigarette smoking in most restaurants about a year and a half ago. Most of these business have not suffered a loss in revenue. From a nonsmoker's perspective, I hate that the state is being a nanny, but am thrilled to go into a restaurant and not be subjected to smoke. I enjoy my meals much more when there is no smoking. If something good were to come out of the nanny-state-no-smoking rule, I believe some restaurants would continue to be nonsmoking if the smoking ban were repealed. I'd patronize such places, because again, I don't like to smell smoke when I eat. Nonsmoking sections don't cut it....but the decision should be the property owners instead of the state.