Smoking Ban in Private Establishments that serve alcohol

To begin, I wish for all that vote for rshortman, or myself, that you do so by rating how each of us debates, and not by your personal opinion of the topic. Thank you in advance for reading our arguments! Ok, now on with the debate! I am initially confused with how you want to debate, as with the companies/restaurants that serve alcohol. Do you want to limit this to bars ("you also have the right to find yourself another bar where smoking isn't allowed.")? Or should we open the debate to include most restaurants in general, as many of them also serve alcohol? I personally would open it up to the typical restaurant that has been forced to eliminate "smoking" sections. My first point is to counter that the ban is a legitimate one. The government reserves the right to institute regulations on private business, especially when dealing with the health of the People they serve. Several examples include the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), setting up gas emission regulations on PRIVATE factories and implementing tougher gas mileage ratings for all car companies; the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), overseeing traffic control towers and making sure all planes are up to specific levels of technical operation; and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), closely monitoring pharmaceutical companies and ensuring the legitimacy of all drugs. Now the EPA is regulating air quality in businesses by passing a ban against smoking in workplaces and other public places, but notably restaurants. Sure there is controversial evidence that Second Hand Smoke (SHS) is harmful, but the fact of the matter is that nearly four-fifths of the population do not smoke. It is much tougher for the EPA to regulate businesses on an individual basis, so they enacted this generalized ban to completely move all smoking designated areas outside of buildings. I don't really see what you mean about "smokers are just easy to pick on." And I will generally cede that politicians are easily bought off by lobbyists and special interest groups. They want to be elected time and time again, and so they get please these groups by bribery, funding their future campaigns, and thus continually be elected. Yet, again, what does this have to pertain to the ban on smoking, since wouldn't tobacco companies be buying off politicians to shoot down such a ban? I will now focus on the smokers' rights, and whether they have been trampled or not. I reiterate that smokers still have nearly-free reign to travel. They are just asked to leave buildings when they have a craving for nicotine. This is a simple and courteous request that businesses could not have done on their own, or a lawsuit would have been brought against them... saying they were discriminating against smokers. You hardly focus on the restaurant's rights... as many felt obligated to serve a place of smoking. As an excellent example, I'm sure many have eaten in places that were small, yet you went because the food was excellent or cheap. These restaurants/bars did their best to keep smoking and non-sections away from each other, but the fact is that the smoke traveled evenly across both sides of the room. There are no dividers that filter smoke completely away from non-smoking sections. And many might actually have had to sit in the smoking section to be served.. as the non-smoking sections were all filled. This way the entire restaurant can be opened and clean for all customers. If smokers feel the need, they can light up outside (but isn't this the polite thing to do anyway?). Slightly unfair or not, you cannot deny that smokers still have rights. But the government must look at the general population as a whole, and just under 80% of the population do not smoke. That's not obtaining easy votes; that is catering to the population they are expected to represent. Am I wrong?