[RightFighter]

If someone doesn't like the smell of smoke, they sit in the non-smoking section.

Sorry, this doesn't work. Nearly every restaurant I've ever been to that had smoking and non-smoking sections did an awful job of separating the two. Simply put, when the rights of one group (smokers) and the rights of another group (those who don't) conflict with each other, someone has to win. In this case, the CLEAR majority decided that they no longer wanted to allow smoking in restaurants. It's that simple. Frame it as an employee-health issue if you want, and that's the way the amendment was written, but what it's really all about is - you don't have a right to blow smoke in my face, whether you're sitting next to me or on the other side of the restaurant where it can waft its way over to my table.

[SheLion]

Excuse me. With today's technology and the huge smoke eaters, your outdated. Sure, if you hang out at Sully's Bar and Grill on the back street you might not find much more then an open window.

In today's high class restaurants and bars, the owners have installed huge expensive smoke eaters to make life comfortable to everyone. Take your casinos. The same. Big smoke eaters. No one is put out anymore by the "smell of smoke." Unless just SEEING someone smoke sets you off. There IS a difference.

[CSM]

"but what it's really all about is - you don't have a right to blow smoke in my face, whether you're sitting next to me or on the other side of the restaurant where it can waft its way over to my table."

And you don't have the right to wear perfume or cologne. I hate that smelly crap. You don't have the right to order the shrimp, I hate that smell too.