[SheLion]

Politicians must be born with a 'nanny' gene which makes them feel compelled to control every facet of everyone's life. If smoking in public is truly a problem, then the public will take care of it WITHOUT THE HELP OF THE NANNIES. We don't need a law to permit smoking bans. Private businesses can prohibit smoking in their establishment IF THEY WANT TO. It's called private property rights. Tobacco is NOT ILLEGAL. If a waitress is opposed to second hand smoke SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO WORK THERE. If patrons object to second hand smoke THEY DON'T HAVE TO EAT THERE. Patrons who enjoy a cigarette after dinner DON'T HAVE TO PATRONIZE A NON-SMOKING RESTAURANT. This isn't rocket science.

We have been round and round with some "FReepers" in here about just what you have said.

But the anti-smoking FReepers tell us that our rights end at their nose and they are all for smoking bans.  We try to point out that it should be left up to the business owners and NOT big government.  But, since these anti-smoking FReepers can't stand smoking and/or smokers, they think that this government intrusion into our lives is just peachy.

They have no clue about the loss of jobs.  Loss of revenue and the closures. Also, the trickle down effect to include vendors that deliver supplies to the business.  When a business has to cut back, the owner no longer needs so much in supplies.

But the anti-smoking FReepers still think this is a wonderful thing.

It's hard to win with our own kind against us.

[layman]

Loss of revenue and the closures

A major loss of revenue will be the proliferation of private clubs. Restaurants which now pay taxes will become nonprofit private clubs. This will be a boon for Elks, Eagles, VFW, Moose clubs, etc., etc. whose memberships have been declining in recent years. Once the nannies figure this out they will no doubt pass legislation restricting private clubs, and the cat and mouse game will continue. The bureaucracy will always be with us.