No Smoking laws. GOOD.

"There is the health issue, the annoyance issue, and there is what I will describe as peer acquisition of new, mostly young smokers who begin their smoking careers because it was cool (usually in public, within groups, where these urges feed on themselves)….The health issue is obvious, so is the enormous cost of uninsured smoking related illnesses. As we move toward a single payer system the cost to the tax payer will be even more pronounced….Smoking is not a right, unless you consider people acting of their own free will in free exchange with others have a right to do things not expressly prohibited by law." The health issue is not our concern. What they do to their bodies is stupid, yes, but it not our concern. Yes, it is dumb that we have to pay for them. I hate it just as much as you do. I don't think that is is as bad as you say it is, though, because hospitals will deny them some health care if they cannot afford it, and the hospital itself will pay for a lot of the bill. We only get left with a portion to pay. This, I think, is simply one of the downsides to living in a free country. This country was founded on the idea that everyone would be able to persue life, liberty and happiness, and there is nothing legally wrong with smoking. Therefore if smoking makes you happy, then you are free do smoke. The government cannot deny anyone this right, and therefore smoking is a right. So yes, I do consider people acting of their own free will on things that are not expressly prohibited by law to be ok. In the case of smoking, to be exercising a right. When it comes to the annoyance issue, I guess all I have to say is get over it. There is always that place that doesn't allow smoking. So what if non-smokers are the ones moving around? They are the ones choosing not to exercise a right. It is a good choice and it will save you your body, but we are the ones choosing not to exercise a right, so we are the ones moving. Besides, most restaurants have non-smoking sections anyway, so at generally only involves moving from one bench to the next, which is not that hard. "These types of "rights" are legislative in nature and are easily reversed, unlike a constitutional amendment." Not really, because it would be removing one of our foundational decisions, that is, the persuit of happiness. If you take away that right, you take away a pert of the freedom this country was founded on. "Places where certain rights are permitted are defined by the legislature." The right to smoke is kind of like the right to free speech. You can do it almost anywhere, but it is common courtesy not to do it in some places. I would say that smokers are generally pretty good about where they smoke, and if someone does not want them to in such-and-such a place they wont. In restaurants where it is allowed, then it is not a problem. "If non-smoking tax payers where not required to pick up the medical bill for uninsured smokers with smoking related illnesses, I might tend to agree with you." We don't pay for all of it, but yes, it sucks, I agree. This does not change the fact that they have the right to do it, however, and we don't have the right to stop them. We want to, but we won't have the right to. "Smokers are much more prevalent among the uneducated and poor, the very people who have little or no private health care--which means the tax payer will pick up the tab (as we move, unfortunately, to a single payer system)." If you ask ANYBODY you come up to in any given place on any given day, I can almost guarantee that they will be able to tell you smoking is bad for you. I say almost because there are always those out there who really don't know or are in denial. This number in NEXT TO NOTHING. Anyone with any access to any kind of media knows that smoking is bad. There are even billboards all over that say that smoking is bad, so arguing that people don't know is really a weak argument. "It would be taking away a nuisance and a health hazard." If it bothers you, stay away from it. In most cases, it is not the health of non-smokers in jeopardy. If it is, go somewhere where smoking is not allowed. "In practice, there are few non-smoking bars and restaurants. Besides, why should the non-smoker be the one to move? Smokers are rude. They brought this on themselves" Even the restaurants that do allow smoking generally have non-smoking sections. Smokers can be rude, but I have found that generally they are not. They have brought nothing upon themselves. Do you want the government to ban you from talking? I'm sure you have said something against it in you life, and that makes you rude too. You have brought it upon yourself, right? Of course not. You have the right to free speech. It may not be in the constitution, but it is definitely a right. Thanks, Renzzy