Smoking Ban in Private Establishments that serve alcohol

I do notice, however, that you are discussing a particular ban affecting the state of Alaska [to which I (nor the rest of those who read this) know the exact statutes)]. I am familiar with the smoking ban of Tennessee, and can conclude that the bans are remotely similar in origination, as you are protesting the legislation of such bands in general. Your main argument is attacking whether the Representatives and Senators of the United States Congress. .. no, you are debating whether a SINGLE STATE's government has the power to enact a ban for that PARTICULAR state. As a side note, eighteen (18) states have passed their OWN guidelines to where smokers can and cannot light up. My simple solution for that is, if you don't like it: MOVE! If you are a smoker who is offended by the ban (or rather I should say that he/she believes in free reign of cigarette/cigar use regardless of courtesy to others), however, then start a movement against the ban! But wait! There WAS a movement of individuals gathering signatures to protest the ban. .. In fact, there was such a movement in the city of Anchorage (the city of reference [and home town I should add] by my opponent): Number of signatures: 12,000. (#1) Rough city population: 275,000. (#2) Percentage of population in movement: 4.36%. I found that 24% (#5) of Alaskan residents are smokers. Taking a rough estimate: Percentage of Anchorage smokes: 25%. Number of residents that smoke: 69,000 people out of 275,000. Again, number of signatures: 12,000. Moreover, assuming those signed were all smokers: 17% of smokers are against the ban. That really does not make a case for smokers who are against the ban. But maybe the statistics are different in other places? ?? I didn't find that conclusion. As stated by the Pennsylvania Department of Health (#3), somewhere between 71% and 80% of smokers BELIEVE in second hand smoke, and that it is HARMFUL to those who choose a healthier way of living: not smoking. Now, let us discuss Second Hand Smoke in general, or "passive smoking," as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization, all suggest that is exactly what it is. I am giving evidence that, although my opponent regards evidence as "dubious at best… and fraudulent at worst," such prestigious organizations as these MUST have conclusive evidence supporting their claims (otherwise that's a lot of wasted money). Also, my opponent regarded papers back in 1993, as deemed "fraudulent" by a non-scientist judge. I am positive dozens of more recent, independent studies since have given more evidence. Scientific evidence has no opinion. .. only those who read the studies and INTERPRET them have opinions. Still, the science and mathematics remain. Both smokers AND non-smokers agree that Second Hand Smoke is dangerous. The LEVEL of danger is disputed, such as if SHS is really responsible for the following (#3): discomfort, asthma, heart disease, lung cancer, and lower birth rate in babies (as my opponent brought up "children" earlier). I also have one more argument claiming that STATE government lawmakers DO have the privileged right (especially at the conclusion of independent studies and the advice of national and international research agencies) to ban nearly anything, not just smoking. Here are some sources I used: 1. . http://media.www.thenorthernlight.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.dsf.health.state.pa.us... 4. . http://www.cancer.org... 5. . http://www.hss.state.ak.us...