Only someone who has the mistaken idea that they have a right to tell someone else what rules to make for the use of their private property would make such a comment. The home and the business place share the same property rights.
Anyone who suggests otherwise should be jailed. It should be a jailable offence.
Not to nitpick, but I wouldn't jail them for merely suggesting such a thing. Freedom of speech, and petition of redress...
But actually doing it, on the other hand should get you that favorite of punishments - stuck in a hot, small dark room with a box of cheap stogies and you don't come out till you've smoked every last one to the stub. That'll learn 'em.
Smoking cigarettes (not weed) just tobacco which is a legal commodity.........is the relaxation of choice for 55 million Amercians. I wonder what ccmay prefers........prescription drugs.......or booze?
Telling "someone else what rules to make for the use of their private property" is exactly how a community organizes and protects itself. A person either wants community to a more or lesser extent or he doesn't want community at all. Most people freely choose to want community to some extent. And they decide, under a set of cultural and constitutional rules, to what extent. That's why the community will punish you if you use your private property to shoot and kill or wound your neighbor or a stranger on a street. That's why the community will punish you if you drive your private automobile into a pedestrian who is "following the accepted rules." All laws put people on notice of ways their conduct is restricted and that, if they violate those restrictions, they're liable to punishment. How those laws are made, how those restrictions are decided, is the key issue. By fiat? Edict? Representative vote? While the founding fathers professed "limited government," acceptable limits change and the community reflects that. The founding fathers accepted slavery and wrote it into the Constitution with the infamous 3/5ths clause. Most of us don't. The founding fathers accepted "indirect" election of Senators. Most of us don't. The list goes on. Are smoking bans in public spaces beyond the extent that we want community? Not, apparently, for some people. A medical and legal argument can be made that all people exposed to tobacco smoke are harmed, including those not smoking. A political argument can be made that I am harmed when you smoke in the privacy of your home -- if I and others are then liable to pay for the treatment of your smoking-related illnesses. Why should I be barred from restricting your conduct in this instance and then forced to pay for the consequences of your conduct?