I don't see anyone wrapping smoking in the mantle of personal freedom, including myself. My references generally regard to rights of private property owners.
I'm glad that NYC has given businesses the ability to not have smokers on their premises.
NYC did no such thing, all businesses have always had that ability. What NYC (and NYS, as well as California, Delaware, Maine, etc)have done is remove the ability of businesses to have smoking on their premises.
I am pretty sure those of you extolling the virtues of the smoking bans would be the first to scream if the government mandated that all business be required to permit smoking. However, it is the same principle, if you agree the government has the right to do one, you then agree it has the right to do the other.
This has nothing to do with my being able to smoke in someone else's establishment, I happen to patronize establishments that voluntarily prohibit smoking for a variety of reasons....just like I have a variety of reasons for patronizing those that permit smoking. However, except when absolutely necessary, I do not patronize establishments that have been forced at gun point (government edict) to ban smoking. My reason is the government obviously isn't interested enough in my tax dollars to accomodate me, so I have no intentions of further giving them any more of my tax dollars than is absolutely necessary.
Maybe I was unclear, but my concern about smoking and personal freedom was meant for business owners, too. Removing the ability to have smoking on your premises just doesn't seem like a negative. You stated that if I believe smoking can be prohibited, then conversely the mandating of smoking should be permitted. I get your point. I just don't understand why a business owner would WANT to purposely increase the chances of their patrons getting lung cancer.
I don't like government intrusion into my life any more than you do. But in the instance of smoking, less is always better.