Smoking Ban in Private Establishments that serve alcohol

First, I'd like to clarify my stance. I'm not debating whether smoking should be banned from restaurants that serve alcohol for the simple reason that generally speaking, children are also served at those restaurants. Your argument cedes that the government retains its right to implement regulations on certain industries via certain entities. In this sense, you would be correct. However, we're not talking about the EPA, or the FAA or even OSHA. We're talking about LEGISLATION, assembly members who get together to create a new law banning smoking from private sectors and (basically) the public indoors. The very fact that none such entities were utilized to create or enforce such regulations tells me that it was a political agenda. (And I am referring specificially to the smoking ban enacted July 1st, 2007 in Anchorage, Alaska but the story is much the same in most places where a ban was enacted). The first stand taken against indoor smoking was back in 1993, when the EPA came out with a study that outlined the negative affects of SHS. The study was found to be based on meta-analysis or 'junk science' in which poll numbers could be easily manipulated to protray whatever they wanted. Deemed fraudulant by a judge, the papers were thrown out by the federal government. Nonetheless, they made the rounds through the Red Cross, The American Lung Association, The American Medical Association, The American Cancy Society and numerous mutli-billion dollar pharmaceutical cartels. And although others may have different reasons for supporting the ban (i.e. smoke bothers me, rude b@stards) the SHS research, even if fraudulant, gave them the leverage they needed. Second, Tobacco companies couldn't pay off politicians even if they wanted to. First of all, how would that look on a politician running for office? Supporting an industry that kills, accepting bribes from them? No way! Besides, Tobacco companies have been losing serious momentum ever since the anti-tobacco campaigns (sponsored by pharmaceutical cartels) swept across America like a Tornado. Rather it's the pharmaceutical cartels themselves that pay the big dollars towards political campaigns and considering how much revenue they bring in every year from Quit Assist RXs, I can only imagine how much they would support the Smoking Ban trend. If I understand the point that you were trying to make, it's that the Smoking Ban is perfectly acceptable because A: politicians just want to be re-elected time and time and what's wrong with that? (What?!?!) and B: Most of the population doesn't smoke and isn't that just the polite thing to do? Unfortunately, I do see a problem. I see a problem with legislators trying to win votes by fixing what wasn't broken to begin with. I'll give you an example, here in Anchorage before the Ban was implemented, there were 300 private establishments that serve alcohol (bars) that were already non-smoking and all restaurants were already non-smoking. 90 private stablishments allowed smoking. Non-smokers having 2/3 of the bar market and all of the restaurant market were far from being forced to be around SHS. In fact, I could argue that smokers were even less of a nuissance to them back then, back when smokers didn't huddle together outside by the doors of every bar in town where you could walk down the street without walking by a cloud of smoke. And you're right, partitioned sections of non-smokers and smokers probably wouldn't do justice of keeping smoke away from non-smokers but smoke-eaters certainly would. In fact, some air filters are so powerful, you can't smell the cigarette of the person sitting right next to you (some of these more powerful smoke eaters remove up to 96% of particulants in the air). Properly divided and with decent air filtration (regulated by and meeting the standards of OSHA), I see no reason that the already small percentage of bars couldn't have smokers in them. The he air filter would be very expensive to install and maintain but for those bars, pool halls, bingo halls, restaurants and lounges whose revenues have taken a serious nose-dive since the Ban, that might be an expense worth having. Of course, that sort of thing should be left for the free market to decide, not the government. Now down to the nitty gritty of the Smoking Ban philosophy. There is a new trend in America, the trend of public safety. We are OBSESSED with public safety. If you don't believe me, just take a look at the warnings we put on medication bottles and coffee (Warning: Contents hot and will burn if you poor directly on your genitilia). This is because of the litigious nature of our judicial system (everyone is sue-happy) and because as a nation, we've been exceedingly spoiled, weak-minded with an arrogant sense of entitlement. This sense of entitlement makes us feel it's incredibly audacious for the government to let anything bad happen to us. As a result, we want more and more, stricter and stricter laws to make everything safe, prohibit everything and our kids have to wear a helmet for everything but masturbating. Soccer Mom legislation basically, if we don't like it, we'll just BAN IT. Thusly, reasonable alternatives are pushed aside as we grab at the nearest feel-good solution. Smoking indoors is really no different. There's no reason behind it, no rationale. It just felt good to do it and our politicians were more than happy to oblige. For the record, I hate this new America. The America that doesn't seem to mind trading in it's freedom little by little in exchange for...not even real safety, but the illusion of safety.