The DC city council voted Tuesday to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. Alcohol isn't healthy either. Will the elected officials of my city vote to ban booze in bars next? How about deleting bacon double-cheeseburgers and baby-back ribs from restaurant menus? "Any bar or restaurant in this city may voluntarily go smoke free, and smokers would have no claim against them, except to take their business elsewhere," the Cato Institute's Radley Balko told the city council six months ago. "Indeed, more than 200 businesses in Washington, D.C. have done exactly that.... You don't have the right to walk onto someone else's property, demand to be served food or drink someone else has bought, and demand that they serve you on your terms. Free societies don't work that way."

I just KNOW that the DC Council is behind the failure of McDonalds to re-introduce the McRib.

This is an issue I've been on both sides of, beeing a former smoker. I quit ("cold turkey") 32 years ago, when there were no patches or nicotene-laden chewing gums available. I had been smoking 2 to 3 packs a day by then, for 4 years.

As a non-smoker, I certainly appreciate being able to walk into a restaurant without being assualted by cigarette smoke and working in an office where I don't need an oxygen mask.

On the other hand, I can see how smokers feel about their "right" to smoke being violated - even though no such right exists or is protected by the Constitution. The legislation of human behavior, however, is not at all without precedent or good reason, especially when that behavior is harmful to others. Smoking, if criminalized, will not be a so-called "victimless" crime.

The most damning thing about the "smoker's rights" crowd is their defense of something that not only is negative, but harmful to themselves and those around them. In fact, it might be argued that smoking is far more harmful to those around the smoker than heroin addiction is to those around the junkie. You can't get a secondhand heroin addiction, but secondhand smoke has been shown to cause cancer in otherwise healthy people. No one except druggies, NORML (same thing as druggies) and the ACLU would campaign for the right of drug users to pursue their habit in public, so why should advocating what amounts to the public use of another dangerous drug (tobacco) be defended?

My father smoked filterless Camels for some 20 years before being diagnosed with emphysema. He lived another 17 years, during which his quality of life was severely diminished. I know because I was the only one caring for him during the last years of his life.

I'm not about to file a lawsuit against the Phillip Morris company for "killing" my father, but I certainly see nothing wrong with private businesses banning smoking on their own premises. They have as much right to do so as smokers have to smoke on their own property. When smokers enter someone else's property, though, and demand to have their "right" to foul the air of everyone in the establishment, that is overstepping the bounds of their "right" to smoke, in my opinion.

If you're a smoker and feel persecuted and inconvenienced, consider the situation if it were to be reversed. If smokers were allowed to light up anywhere, anytime, those of us who don't smoke and who are adversely affected by cigarette smoke would be effectively barred from dining out, going to bars, shopping, or working in any environment without our health being endangered. Your convenience is not nearly as important as my health and life. Besides, if you don't like the inconvenience of having to go outside or go somewhere else, no one is preventing you from eliminating that inconvience by quitting your use of tobacco. If I did it, you can, too.

I say smoke em' if you got em' and let freedom reign.

Gary, I understand your point about the perils of second-hand smoke completely.

But why must ALL restaurants and ALL bars ban smoking? What if employees and patrons, KNOWING beforehand that a particular establishment allows smoking, make a calculated, independent decision to either work in or patronize such an establishment? Should they not be able to make that personal choice which will only impact them, and such establishments be able to operate so as to cater to smokers and let the market decide if the business model makes sense?

If not, then shouldn't we, as Dan says, be protected by the government-that-knows-best from EVERYTHING that may cause us harm, including drugs, alcohol, playing the ponies, fatty foods, unprotected gay sex, etc.?

Gary: Pardon me? I have never heard a smoker say they have a right to smoke in someone else's home or busines (and cancer from casual second hand smoke is a bunch of hot air). But, by the same token, nonsmokers have no "right" to make all businesses or homes nonsmoking. This is about one group of people being intolerant of another group's foible and enlisting the guns of the government to make it stop through insanely high taxes, bans in many private and public places, and constant harrassment. That's all.

I am a non-smoker, and I enjoy dining and drinking in the absence of cigarette smoke. I would enjoy even more a government that lets private business owners make these decisions for themselves. The second hand smoke issue is as substantial as a puff from a Cohiba.

I don't know if I can go to Good Guys up on Wisconsin Ave if there isn't smoke. How will deals get done in our fair city? Will federal government come to a stand-still without "smoke-filled backrooms?" ...wait... is that a bad thing?

I knew a guy who fell into a dumpster leaving out the back of Good Guys after he just downed five pitchers.

Thom, you misunderstand me. I didn't say that ANY restaurants, bars, etc. MUST do anything. I said that IF they VOLUNTARILY adopt a non-smoking policy, it is their prerogative to do so.

What makes you believe that privately owned businesses should be compelled to ALLOW smoking on their own property without consideration of what is a majority of the people? More people are quitting tobacco every day and the population of non-smokers now outnumbers that of smokers, effectively making non-smokers the majority.

Are you saying that the interests, however irrational, of the minority should override those of the majority? As I said, no one is forced to smoke; it is a choice. As long as one can overcome being affected by the ban on smoking by merely quitting tobacco, no one really has a legitimate complaint. There is no "right" to smoke, especially when that behavior negatively impacts others' right to life.

Smoker says:

"Gary: Pardon me? I have never heard a smoker say they have a right to smoke in someone else's home or busines (and cancer from casual second hand smoke is a bunch of hot air)."

Well, I certainly have. I've had people light up in my car and, when I told them to put it out, they bitched about their "right" to smoke "anywhere and anytime" they feel like it. As for the effects of seconhand smoke, you may deny it all you want to, but scientific studies have confirmed that airborne cigarette smoke is more dangerous to one's health than smoke directly inhaled from a burning cigarette. It has to do with the changes made to the smoke as it is expelled, along with carbon dioxide, from the smoker's lungs.

"But, by the same token, nonsmokers have no "right" to make all businesses or homes nonsmoking."

No one said they do. I am advocating voluntary banning of smoking by businesses which choose to enact such bans. If they choose to do so, it is perfectly within their rights to do so.

Smokers cannot compell a business to lift a smoking ban simply because it inconveniences them. As I have explained, if smokers feel inconvenienced, they can simply quit smoking and never have to worry about restricted access again.

I quit "cold turkey" 32 years ago and, if I can do it, anyone can. Besides, it is in your best interests to quit, rather than to waste your foreshortened life bitching about how businesses won't allow you to smoke on their property.

"This is about one group of people being intolerant of another group's foible and enlisting the guns of the government to make it stop through insanely high taxes, bans in many private and public places, and constant harrassment. That's all."

No, it is about a minority of people defending an undefendable behavior that not only endangers their own lives, but the lives of those around them. It is about the utter lack of concern smokers feel for their fellow citizens and their stupid stubborness in insisting they have a "right" to a behavior that is killing not only themselves, but non-smokers, as well. The smokers' argument is simply illogical. There is nothing about smoking that anyone should be defending. Bear in mind that I was once a heavy smoker, myself. If I were still a heavy smoker, I'd be looking for ways to quit the habit instead of complaining about others not "letting" me continue to kill myself.