"Why respect the owner's rights only for private smoking clubs? Why not permit the owner of ANY property to excercise the decision of what he will permit on the property HE paid for?"
you have that right. But when you voluntarily open your property to the public then you incur certain responsibilities.
I'd even support a situation where visitors to a business could sign a waiver saying they agree to have chemical residue exposure as a condition of entry. I'm not against smoking. I am against having smoke applied nonconsensually.
This is the only drug and drug residue that is routinely applied to people who don't want it.
You are walking proof that:
1. Mental illness is rampant in this country; and
2. The human mind is a most powerful thing.
If you think that being able to detect the odor of burning tobacco is harmful to you, it will be.
The question then becomes: can the government address every mental illness in the country?
No it is not!
There are also perfumes, obnoxious body odors and transmittable infection germs. How much are those taxed?
What is the difference between signing a "waiver" and voluntarily entering the business? (Besides a lawyer getting $$$)
By entering the building, then remaining when the ashtrays and/or any other evidence of smoking being allowed are noticed, the customer has given implied consent.