The Michigan Smoking Ban, as it has been amended and passed by the state senate, does not allow smoking in any place where employees work, including: bars, restaraunts, casinos (Unless on reservations) and cigar parlors. The House may amend this to add exemptions, but the most they will probably exempt would be casinos and cigar parlors. The way it is currently written, bars cannot even have an outdoor smoking area.
I’m interested in your take on the Smoking Ban issue. Most of the people I have talked to, Smokers and non, are not addressing the fundamental impact of the ban. I think the ban will ultimately be good for me and society as it relates to aspects of health, but bad for our freedom and liberty. I don’t want to smoke, and I spend lots of time at bars smoking, hence; I will benefit on the surface. I think, even if I never touched a cigarette, I would be adamantly against this. My whole philosophy is that liberty requires personal responsibility. Capitalism relies on consumer accountability to work properly. The more government intervenes, the less citizens practice their role in that scheme, which is to shape conduct and standards of their society. The core issue is: Should the government set the standards of conduct for privately owned business which condone a legal act by their patrons; or should consumers affect that change if they dislike it? Non-smoking establishments already exist in Mich. If they are more profitable than smoking establishments the laws of capitalism say that the business owners will move that direction, which many are. Proponents also say that allowing smoking discriminates against employees, who do not have a reasonable choice because they must work for their livelihood. I think that is entirely untrue, but it will require a sacrifice to stand up for themselves and affect change in their workplace. If people don’t want to work in a smoking environment, and they stay true to their convictions – which means they may have to take another job for less money or move – then the labor supply will decrease, thereby increasing the necessary wage to get workers, eventually forcing the owner to ban smoking to compete. It comes down to whether we want to affect change from the top down or the bottom up. You can be lazy and choose the former, but you’re going to lose liberties along the way.
Two reasons I second guess my stance:
First, I might agree to outlaw smoking in restaraunts or places children are allowed. It is obvious that second hand smoke contaminates the air, no matter how little, and children don’t have the ability to decide whether to expose themselves to it. But then, should that go for their home environment, too? Where do you stop?
Secondly, I think what makes this unique is the market force that drives the demand for smoking bars and restaurants. The market force that drives the demand is not quality or price, but physical addiction to an activity that is not inherently connected in any way to the product or service provided by the business. Still, I don’t think that is enough to support this law.
What are your thoughts?
Tags: bars, bill, casinos, Michigan, non-smoking, representatives, restaraunts, second hand smoke, senate, smoking, taverns
May 15, 2008 at 8:00 pm |
michigan is way behind the times. even foreign cities where you never thought such bans would be imposed have passed such laws and they mostly have been universally effective and accepted. the public does have an interest in smoking bans. health care professionals now know second-hand smoke is worse than the smoker’s drag. a good part of our health costs can be attributed to the cost of treating smokers, so far even ahead of the cost of other people’s obesity. the tobacco industry makes these things with the full knowledge they have a product that will kill you if used as intended. smoking really should be banned altoghether, but there is no political will to do that.
May 15, 2008 at 8:13 pm |
Of course it threatens liberty. Not being able to do whatever you want is always a curtailment of liberty. But that means all and every civil society is a threat to liberty, and I’ll bet you don’t want to give up the civil society that brought you automobiles and gas refineries. And without a state to protect such specialized productions they would cease to exist.
http://www.stuffwhitedbagslike.wordpress.com
May 15, 2008 at 8:52 pm |
I am not a smoker, but I dont like this type of laws. If people dont want to smell smoke, go somewhere else.
May 16, 2008 at 1:42 am |
I agree with your statement, but it s just a matter of semantics. I understand that civilization inherrently subdues liberty. Being in the proximity of smoke is avoidable, so this law is basically saying that those that wish to avoid smoke are not responsible enough to do so. Businesses that allow smoking are not forcing nonsmokers to enter their establishments. I do not own a business, but if I ever do, I think I should be allowed to permit legal practices –or for that matter, some currently illegal practives — within my walls, especially considering. like it or not, there is a strong correlation between the services rendered in the case of bars or restaraunts, being eating and drinking along with the act of smoking.
May 16, 2008 at 2:07 am |
I wasn’t aware that communism was cutting edge
May 16, 2008 at 3:27 am |
fergyalex: the greek philosophers and every one since has struggled with the point at which one person’s liberty impinges on the liberty of another and how far to take these liberties in general. too far and you have anarchy. would that blogs would debate something like instead of the crap you usually see.
as for communism, true communism cannot survive because it flies in the face of the natural tendencies of man. few of us is willing to share and share alike.
May 16, 2008 at 4:10 am |
But, the consumer has the liberty to avoid the smoke, so why must the liberty of the bar owner be stifled. Lets say someone is born poor. Are they better off to work hard and make their own succeess, or to be awarded a large trust fund when their parents die? In time, if non smoking is what society wants, with had work and dedication, it will prevail, but to have the government step in and make it law, is like getting a fat trust fund you haven’t earned. There is an alternative. So then, the market should regulate and not the government. When there is the freedom and availability of an alternative, yet a government intervenes, that to me, becomes communism or good-hearted fascism (because the fascist action is for the common good). I understand the complications of society, but I’ll never forget the importance of personal liberty. That is why Americal flourished so quickly, and why people came here in droves, for their chance at liberty and an escape from confining traditionalism. I am not patriotic. I am logical and skeptical. And, I am not down with status quo. The people in office, in my opinion, are there to do what the public cannot — at least with a reasonable amount of ease — and boycotting smoking establishments is the way this change should occur, not becasue of centralized policy.
May 16, 2008 at 6:38 am |
fergyalex:
well, this thing has moved far beyond the issue of smoking bans. we have moved into some basic political thought, which i am willing to pursue if you are. in today’s world, labels can be explosive, so i’ll refer you to the think tank, cato institute, at http://www.cato.org/. it represents what i am assuming is your viewpoint–libertarian. the political thought has suffered from some crazies such as lyndon larouche, and now the sleazebag bob barr. i don’t know what barr’s about (can’t be good), but ron paul is a decent man firmly grounded in libertarianism (i have covered both as a congressional reporter). my problem with the political theory, and the problem most people have, is that it relies on the market place to provide the needs of the people. we who disagree with libertarianism argue the marketplace, particularly today’s marketplace, does not do the job. how about the price you pay for gas, explored by the site i contribute to, http://www.straightrecord.com/oil, or how about what you pay for health care (have you seen where the u.s. ranks vis a vis other nations?), and what about if you or someone in your family suffers a catastrophe? and on and on. do you really want to have to fend for yourself with no way out? as life gets more complex, i posit we need more government, not less. that’s not to say it works well, but how it works depends on whom we send to washington. yep, how the national government works relies on 535 local decisions. finally, thanks for a reasonable discourse, something sadly missing from the blogosphere.
May 16, 2008 at 12:15 pm |
The fact that is rarely mentioned is that smoking bans are based on a fraud. Bartenders’ air has been analyzed and amounts to one fifth of one cigarette per shift.
If the law is fraudulent we don’t have a law.
May 16, 2008 at 6:35 pm |
You cant just blow asbestos fibers in someone’s face in a restaurant. Smoking has been proven to cause injury to non smokers in much the same regard. There is just no argument other than the fact that the injustice has occured in the past. Smokers who subject other people to their filth should be ashamed – they clearly are not and will not ammend their behavior. Now they will be stopped by the real reason that government exists. It’s like someone with a bb gun in a bar shooting at people and the idiot’s telling people that they shouldn’t have come there. It’s just a physical assault, smoking is.
May 16, 2008 at 9:31 pm |
I don’t understand. We all agree second hand smoke is harmful. We have free will. The Pied Piper isn’t playing soothing flute ditties to lure nonsmokers into smokey bars and restaraunts. This issue doesn’t require legislation. There are alternatives. Why bring in the government?
May 18, 2008 at 5:55 pm |
Fergyalex et al:
Back in the fifties scientists subjected lab animals to heavy doses of tobacco smoke in an attempt to cause disease. They failed every time, unimpeachably establishing that smoke is totally harmless. Dispute this fact all you want.
The tobacco war is Big Pharma’s attempt to outlaw tobacco and replace it with prescription drugs at ten prices. You can cheer them on like a soccer hooligan but –unless you’re a medical practicioner– you won’t make a penny from your silliness. What you will do is to make a mortal enemy of anybody who smokes, and time will tell how smart that is.
Let me remind you that tobacco bans are not the work of deluded bloggers but highly corruptible politicians. They do not care the least about your opinions.
May 19, 2008 at 12:15 am |
Camel: Which studies are you citing? I’m sure there are plenty of other studies that would refute what you are saying. I doubt second hand smoke is as bad as everyone thinks, but it seems quite logical to me that when you replace carbon dioxide molecules with molecules that are dispersed into the air from cigarettes, that there may be some detrement.
Straightrecord: Thanks for the links. I agree that Libertarian ideology is a bit Utopian, but that goes for all political ideologies. In reality, we need to find equilibrium between different ideologies in regard to application in policy. I think we have gone much to far toward a centrist governemnt. I think we need to approah policy from a libertarian standpoint in order to bring the pendulum back the other way. The first goal should be personal liberty, and I don’t think people appreciate the impacy of sacrificing personal liberty in exchange for what is perceived to be common good.
May 19, 2008 at 12:18 pm |
Fergyalex:
Is “impacy” a word? I’ve got to look that one up!
If you can find or do a study that gives lab animal cancer with smoke, I want to see it. If you can,I promise to quit smoking.
And if you can prove that smoke displaces carbon dioxide or any other molecule, I want to see that too. Are you trying to sound like some kind of scientist?
May 19, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
Camel:
No, I don’t think “impacy” is a word, nor is “approah”, which I also used in that response. I’m either cutting edge or just plain sloppy.
You understand that I support the business owner’s right to have a smoking establishment, right?
Maybe “displace” was the wrong word, becasue I’m not a scientist, and not sure that is proper terminology. My assumption was that space within an enclosed area was finite, and therefore the volume of the area is fixed. When foreigh molecules become airborne, they move or incorporate with other molecules in the air. Also, I’m not sure if by definition second hand smoke is comprised of molecules. Particles might be a better term. Do you not see smoke? That means there is something there. It might not be as harmful as they say, but I’d bet it has some impact. Do you think that air quality is as good between places like Montana and L.A.? I don’t, and I’d guess that the air quality in a smokey bar is worse than one without, but the issue is whether people have the freedome to choose whether or not to expose themselves to those environments, which they do, and which is why the government should stay out of it.
May 19, 2008 at 9:32 pm |
Courts support smoking bans on the grounds that no business owner has the right to kill his customers. Evidence of same is nonexistent but that doesn’t matter. The courts are in on the Fraud of the Century, at least so far
Everything is comprised, or composed, of molecules. Smoke is composed of particulate matter, which is visible, and gases, which are not. Both are too dilute to be of any health consequence whatsoever.
If you have to be told stuff like the above why are you blogging?
May 19, 2008 at 10:22 pm |
Camel:
Thank you for the lesson, although I don’t think you revealed anything new to me beyond possibly the proper terminology.
My argument is more philisophical, regarding where the bounds of government should lie. Your argument is that second hand smoke is harmless. That doesn’t make sense to me. You admit that smoke puts particulates and gasses into the air, which are undoubtedly breathed in, yet you think it’s harmless? You could argue that it is not proven to be significantly harmful enough to warrant a ban, but to say it is harmless makes you sound silly. I’m a smoker. I think it is harmful to me. I think people around me would be better off inhaling regular air, rather than that contaminated with the byproduct of my cigarettes.
I like how you use the name of a cigarette marketing icon for your handle. You must really like smoking.
May 20, 2008 at 8:10 am |
i don’t know how old joe camel, but anyone under the age of 50 is a fool to be a smoker. now such a smoker can blame it on peer pressure, looking cool, whatever, but all of them grew up knowing smoking was bad for them. the science is there, even though you don’t need it. the evidence is obvious. my older brother, older than 50 and a smoker before it was known to be harmful, had to have one of his lungs removed because it had been so damaged by lifelong smoking. he, most of all, would call you smokers under 50 total fools. and he would agree that the rest of us need to be protected from you and your impact on our health and our health costs. if you cannot see that, i am sorry for you all.
May 20, 2008 at 12:38 pm |
Hey straightrecord;
I’m over 50 and have been a heavy smoker for 55 years. That’s over 600,000 unfiltered cigarettes. I haven’t had any lungs removed or otherwise suffered any ill effects whatsoever.
What I have done is to enjoy the effects of the best antidepressant known to man. Considering your own surly nature, maybe you should do the same.
Fergyalex:
Do you turn all colors about the gases and particulate matter in the two pounds of auto and industrial pollution that you breathe daily? Don’t be silly.
May 21, 2008 at 3:19 am |
camel joe: good luck. you probably will need it. my brother was doing quite well at 50. he started gasping a little more playing golf at 60. just past 70 he had his lung removed and after months and months of chemo, the golf he adored has become a distant joy. he still wants a cigarette, but he has wised up to what he has done to his body over the years and his own denial. he won’t proselytize others, but he now understands the tobacco industry is selling slow, agonizing death and he knows smoking is stupid and, although a libertarian at heart, he is for all smoking bans. too late for himself, but he has concerns for others. you can deny all you want, but leave others alone.
May 21, 2008 at 4:18 am |
Camel: If it is the best antidepressant known to man, I wonder why it isn’t prescribed; they prescribe marijuana, why not cigarettes? Plus, a quick look at history reveals plenty of heavy smokers that commited suicide. It didn’t work so well for them. Cigarettes are not good, plain and simple. But, I agree that living in fear, worrying about every food, every drink, every cigarette, every contaminate, is not a good way to live. It’s okay to relax and enjoy a cigarette. America is anal retentive. I would rather live forty years, free, without the axiety of over-contemplation, than die at ninety, always having dwelled on every act I made. I know people like that, and I realize happiness is relative, but they are so worrid about the smoke in the air that they can’t smell the roses.
If I were so sure I could live as long as you smoking so freely, I would continue, and who knows, I still might.
May 21, 2008 at 4:35 am |
straightrecord: If he were a true libertarian, he would still be against smoking bans. That’s what Libertarianism is about, accepting responsibility for your actions.
Your brother may have been too old to know better when he started, and for that he may feel cheated. Smoking tobacco is nothing new, but marketing it in a capitalist society is fairly new. I understand you blame capitalism for that, but that is going to happen, even with a strong central government and their lobbyists. Gree is human nature. The beauty of libertariansim is the acceptance of human traits. The acceptance that failure is definite within the populus, and that any inherrent duty to assist that failure is entirely personal. People are greedy, and libertarianism gives the rest of us a reasonable chance to supress it. A multi-trillion dollar government imposing regulations on people that are not being malicious sets up a bad precedent for the future. If you don’t want to be in an unhealthy environment (that of smoking), you do not have to. That is the beauty of our free market and of liberty. Start your own nonsmoking bar or restaraunt, if the government hasn’t already sey up to many barriers. Let the market decide, not the government
May 21, 2008 at 5:32 am |
fergyalex: my brother probably would be surprised to be called a libertarian. i ascribe that political view because his views are consistent with libertarian beliefs. as someone with a front-row seat watching the federal government, i can tell you most of what it does is to correct problems the marketplace has exacerbated rather than resolving. libertarianism sounds good, but i don’t believe it is practical, because the marketplace rarely solves problems; it creates them. i’m a capitalist, but i think capitalism needs to be regulated. a great example of that are the current crises caused by high oil and food prices, brought to you courtesy of the marketplace (elsewhere is a posting on the oil crisis and a possible solution, but also on the site: http://www.straightrecord.com/oil). you and i are never going to convince the other and i shall not attempt further to try. i just think tirades against smoking bans here in 2008, when other countries with smokers with worse habits than americans are beginning to pass smoking bans, is putting the horse behind the cart. my side has already won. but thanks for the discourse. it was enjoyable.
May 21, 2008 at 12:21 pm |
Straightrecord:
Google Gro Hatlem Brundtland and Framework Convention on Tobacco Control if you want to find out why smoking bans are worldwide. And why they don’t need a jerk like you to cheer them on.
If you had done so before you posted you wouldn’t waste so much reader’s time.
Fergyalex:
The reason tobacco isn’t prescribed for depression (it should be) is because altrustic physicians don’t make any money on it. It grows out of the ground.
You’re a smoker but feel guilty about it. Why don’t you quit instead of exhorting others to?
My home county is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans with less than one per cent Libertarian. I’m a libertarian at heart but vote Republican because I don’t want to throw my vote away. How about you?
Straightrecord:
If your brother has reached his alotted lifespan of 70 he must be doing something right. I knew joggers who didn’t make it that far. I submit that his poor health is due to old age, not tobacco. Take off your blindfold and checkout some nonsmokers’ health sometime.
May 21, 2008 at 7:31 pm |
fergyalex: you and i can continue to disagree intellectually, but it seems we can write off joe camel. as usually happens with simple people, when all of a person’s points are destroyed, that person turns to attack. the trouble with being libertarian, it would seem, is that you must draw a line somewhere between the extent of another person’s rights and your own, as in the phrase, “your rights stop at the end of my nose.” similarly, joe camel’s stubborn denial notwithstanding, a person who continues to smoke today is committing a form of suicide. a libertarian and a liberal would say a person should be allowed to commit suicide if he wishes. but how he commits that suicide and whether he takes some innocent person with him in doing so would be a point where one (or one’s representatives) would have to begin setting limits.
May 21, 2008 at 8:49 pm |
I read the article (www.straighrecord.com/oil). You state that after 1980 the number of refineries dropped significantly. Wouldn’t the reduced supply explain the steady increase in costs?
The large oil companies are public, and therefore, have open financials. My understanding is that their profit margin is small, and it is the economies of scale and monoply power that lead to their huge profits, which also means large tax revenue to the government. Oil is a strange good to discuss, because it is limited and the demand is so high, and so little is harvested nationally, so it is very unique.
I missed it if it was answered in the article, but my libertarian response would be, if there is so much value in refining, why hasn’t anyone built a new refinery, and why must it be a central government that builds it? If the oil companies really are gouging, it isn’t capitalism that is the cause, it is the lack of competition and collusion that is the cause. I would call for reduced barriers to entry so that more competitors could enter the market, hopefully causing a price drop. If it is a matter of needing refineries, reduce the red tape and give tax incentives to pursue that business endevour, don’t make it a governemnt function, they’ll only make it innefficient.
As far as smoking: I agree it is harmful. I don’t think busdrivers should be able to smoke while driving kids around, but I don’t think you have sufficiently convinced me that government intervention is necessary when it comes to places like bars, bingo halls, and restaraunts.
The national concensus is that smoking is bad, and I beleive naturally, as we become more enlightened, it will be nearly entirely erradicated on its own. This law is forcing the change before the free market is ready, and I think that is wrong. There are too many alternatives for nonsmokers to make the jump to a fascist law that infringes on the liberty of a private business owner and his willing clientelle.
If you wanted to avoid second hand smoke it would be fairly easy, right? If you are exposed to it, it is because you consiously accepted being present in an environment where it existed. So then, why must the smokers and the owners of the places they smoke be forced into this arrangement?
May 22, 2008 at 12:33 pm |
You antitobacco people want to write off Joe Camel as as foolish because I don’t believe a wisp of smoke from a burning leaf is deadly. I submit that anyone born before 1992– when William Reilley released an EPA report that was declared phony by a federal judge–is lucky to be alive if that were true.
If you can remember, everyone was surrounded by smoke back then and most are alive and kicking.
How about hospitals and colleges banning smoking in the breezy outdoors? It’s obviously not because of some phony health threat. No, they want to do their part to coerce smokers to quit. If they can make your smoking their business, imagine what else they can and will do.
I explained before why we can’t have smoking and nonsmoking bars and restaurants. Here it is again. The courts declare that no business owner has the right to poison his customers. I couldn’t agree more on that one. The problem is that they don’t bother to prove that a wisp of smoke IS poison.
Unless they’re forced by public opinion to condider this reality, smoking bans will proliferate.
Anyone who says “I believe smoke is harmful and I don’t like to smell it BUT, BUT, BUT….. “is on the side of the banners.
And let me remind you that “the national consensus” is meaningless. Bans are not the work of the people but corruptible politicians and judges; If you’re the kind of person who has trouble minding your own business, you can cheer them on as spectators only.
And let me remind you also that everyone, including kids. is breathing more than two pounds of auto and industrial pollution per day,plus traces of tobacco smoke, without measurable harm.
If you want to learn all there is to know about the tobacco war and Big Health’s plans to enslave the human race, Google GRO HARLEM BRUNDTLAND. This monster wants to make it her mission to dictate a “healthy” lifestyle for us all.
May 22, 2008 at 9:16 pm |
fergyalex: you ask about the (damn. sorry, had to step over joe camel’s gasping body), about the decline in refineries, but still as much oil refined. i suppose the existing 149 had the greatest capacity or efficiency and were capable of producing the same amount. to the oil companies, fewer refineries mean more control by the oil industry and even today, those u.s. refineries are operating at less than 90 percent capacity despite rising prices. oil industry executives appeared before a congressional committee yesterday and blew blue smoke again, pointing out as you noted, their profit margins are low (they say 4 percent). i put them in the same category as the tobacco executives who didn’t crack a smile when they lied that smoking was not addictive at the same time they were manipulating their cigarettes to make them more addictive.
for the above reasons, it is not in the oil industry’s interest to refine more oil, thus it is not in their interests to have more refineries. it’s all about control and manipulation. still, they are receiving billions in tax incentives and relaxation of laws that apply to everyone else to encourage more domestic exploration.
the straightrecord solution is intended as a tool in the hands of the government to use when the marketplace is not working. in this case, the marketplace not only is not working, it is strangling the u.s. economy, which in turn is having an impact around the world.
i’m all for the marketplace. i am an entrepreneur of sorts myself and libertarianism would be ideal, but i have been around long enough, with a front seat on current events of the past three decades, to know the marketplace works only at the rudimentary level of small business. libertarianism simply will not work in the real, complex world in which we live today. the markeplace does not work at the top and as you can see, it is having a rippling effect all along the rest of the business world. someone needs to be able to get this under control.
i reposted the oil crisis item on straightrecord.com because it appears to have generated so much interest.
May 22, 2008 at 9:49 pm |
straightrecord:
I’m glad you have the world’s problems figured out. You sure are smart. Do you have any political clout besides a big mouth?
I thought this blog was about smoking bans, so I’ll limit my remarks to that and leave the rest of the world to you.
Since everything I say bounces off your skull, I’ve got a higher authority for you. There’s a short but scholarly book printed out on the Internet that tells the story of the tobacco war. It’s entitled IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS. Google it. Dare ya.
December 16, 2008 at 4:11 am |
Let me start off. I don’t want the government intruding in our daily lives. I’m more libertarian than Democrat or Republican. However, bars are not your home, they are a shared space. So if you want to smoke cigarettes or weed, walk around naked, or masturbate, you’re welcome to do it in your home (or even outside). More power to you (my grandmother died of emphysema).
That said, everyone wants an unbiased report. If you can google, then you can find a series of studies conduced by the CDC. If you want non-politically motivated, then the CDC would be it. All they are doing is looking out for the health and well-being of ALL Americans. Here is a link to the CDC study, which also refers to several others:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm
It wasn’t paid for by non-smoking advocates, it wasn’t paid for by cigarette companies and casino lobbies, it was paid for by our own incumbent Republican government.
It states, “To assess whether the El Paso smoking ban affected restaurant and bar revenues, the Texas Department of Health (TDH) and CDC analyzed sales tax and mixed-beverage tax data during the 12 years preceding and 1 year after the smoking ban was implemented. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which determined that no statistically significant changes in restaurant and bar revenues occurred after the smoking ban took effect. These findings are consistent with those from studies of smoking bans in other U.S. cities.”
I moved to Michigan from Texas. I say to my friends at least once or twice a week, “I can’t believe Michigan hasn’t banned smoking.” I miss not having to dry clean my clothes, not going home with a hacking cough (I’ve been sick for two weeks with phlegm because of a smoky bar), not having dry wrinkly skin, not taking years off my life. When Houston and Dallas pass a ban before Ann Arbor, Michigan, you know something is wrong.
On the top two reasons I want to move out of Michigan, the cold is #1, smoky bars is #2. That’s why this state is hemorrhaging people; because auto lobbyists, casino lobbyists, and other paid interests decide what gets done in this state, not the majority of tax-paying citizens.
December 16, 2008 at 1:32 pm |
Don’t say you lean toward libertarian and then support a smoking ban. A Privately owned business and the right to do what you want with that business, so long as it is not illegal, is at the heart of capitalism and libertarianism. Because of natural economic factors – those consuming and producing demand – the market is able to govern the activity of the suppliers through the free choice of the consumer. If smoking is bad and consumers allow it to exist they have only themselves to blame. The power is truly in their hands. Having the government handle the issue is laziness and people not being accountable. You complain that your clothes stink. Apparently people are smoking. I know at least two bars in my town that are “family-friendly” and don’t allow smoking. You’ll have to get all of your non-smoking buddies to frequent these places until other business owners realize that running a non-smoking bar is profitable. Or at least, that would be the libertarian way, but America prefers fascism and socialism, so you shouldn’t have to worry.