[untrained skeptic]

Somewhere along the way in this I became argumentative, mostly for the sake of just being argumentative, to the point of just being rude. I apologize for that.

I agree with your take on this, that it was wrong. I disagree that it was not unconsitutional.

Years of case law versus constitutional law arguments in the courts have eroded original intent.

Our rights have definitely been watered down by activist judges, and different "rights" created that had not existed.

So feel free to go back to the original documents.

How are the bands unconstitutional? What portion of the constitution do they violate? Remember that these are bans at the state level, so it's not a matter of the federal government not having the authority to regulate smoking.

[Madame Dufarge]

Somewhere along the way in this I became argumentative, mostly for the sake of just being argumentative, to the point of just being rude. I apologize for that.

Your gracious apology isn't necessary, I don't think you were being rude at all.

What portion of the constitution do they violate?

In my opinion, these bans are "takings" under eminent domain.

Many businesses have suffered great economic harm and many have been forced to close due to these bans. The bans were forced on the owners, yet none were compensated for the economic losses caused solely by government force.