I doubt that this discussion belongs on the 'General Discussion' board.

However, I don't believe it is a 'lifestyle' issue. I heard some of those same arguments yesterday. If you agree that 'passive smoke' can affect the health of someone who is not smoking, a case can be made for banning smoking. If a gay person stands next to you, your health is not being affected.

The question of property rights seems to be a better argument for smokers. It would seem to be reasonable to ban smoking from all public places that all people have to go to for example government buildings. Private business becomes more gray. The government dictates all sorts of regulations on business to insure some amount of public safety for example building and fire codes, handicap accessibility, codes for bathrooms, kitchens etc. If smoking is a health hazard a government might feel it necessary to regulate it in business that are open to the public in order to better protect its citizens. Private clubs and business would be a different matter.

I don't think there are too many defenders that would say that smoking is not a health hazard. There are just too many studies that say that smoking is bad for your health. But we do lots of things that are bad for our health.

So, rtr it looks like we have to figure out how to balance property rights of a business with the obligations of a government to protect its citizens.

Also, I am somewhat cynical enough to agree in part with car-15 feeling that money does play a role.