Full disclosure: I live in Massachusetts, where there is a state-wide smoking ban in public places, and as someone with a chronic sinus condition that is aggrevated by cigarette smoke, I am a full supporter of any and all smoking bans.

There. Now that that is out of the way I'll relay an amusing incident that happended during our just completed 2-week trip to France. We were in the bar at our lovely hotel in Cannes, sitting in a clearly marked no-smoking section. The bar wasn't very crowded, maybe 50% full and the no-smoking section was probably only 30% occupied. We very happily took our seats, got our drinks, and were sitting there enjoying ourselves when two people at the table next to us, also clearly in the no-smoking section, lit up cigarettes. Okay, we thought, maybe they don't realize they are in the no-smoking section. (An aside: We are not novices to France. We have often commented on the disregard the French seem to have to the no-smoking signs. I don't know why we were surprised in this particular instance. I'll have to chalk it up to tiredness and jet lag.) When the waitress stopped by I commented to her that the people behind us were smoking and weren't we in the no-smoking section? She said, "yes, indeed, this is the no-smoking section" and she promptly brought us an ash tray, apologizing that there hadn't been one on the table!

We were very happy to get to our completely no smoking hotel in St. Remy.

"This is truly scary. One of the founding principles of almost all democracies, including ours, is to protect minorities from being steam-rolled by the majority. "

Actually, the way democracies work is that the majority, through their representatives, makes the laws, that have to be consistent with the constitution.

"Actually, the way democracies work is that the majority, through their representatives, makes the laws, that have to be consistent with the constitution."

If indeed one has a constitution.....

I think you mean a written consitution. There's always a set of statutes and previous decisions that new laws must conform to. this is usually called a constitution even if there isn't a written one...

Smoking bans are one part of a program to reverse the previous social acceptability of something we now know to be unwise from any perspective. But my question to Eric is this - so if a majority favor something it's OK? Suppose they are fanatics?

Well Eric, I am glad that you remembered the Constitution. If you read it, and especially the Bill of Rights, you would recognize that a prime purpose is not to sanctify majority rule, it is to protect minorities from it.

I would prefer to see business have the choice. If 80% of a population wants to go to a smoke free restaurant or bar, then it would be in the best financial interest for an owner to go smoke-free.

If people continue to frequent a smoking-allowed establishment then it must mean that they prefer that. What's wrong with letting the market-place decide?

"but there are plenty of celebrities who are known to have died of AIDS."

Yes, but when they died, their obits didn't say they had unprotected sex, maybe promiscuously - it was treated as a tragedy (as it is.) And if a grossly obese person kicks the bucket it doesn't say they weighed 500 lbs because they made total oinkers of themselves. But there's a "tsk, tsk" factor if somebody gets lung cancer.

There's a holier than thou attitude against smokers by some & if majority is supposed to rule, there would still be "colored" bathrooms & segregation.

Smokers in a lot of cases will die younger (everyone dies of something) & it will cost the health care system. Nearly every form of disease will cost a lot of money. I don't buy all the 2nd hand smoke hype causing so many deaths. I understand people with lung problems that it bothers but now they make it sound like if you're in an auditorium & a cig is lit up you're going to get lung cancer.

Since all the smokers are going to die so young, think of all the Social Security saved! Quite frankly, as a non-drinker for over 32 years, the destruction I've seen caused by alcohol is far worse than tobacco but that's still socially acceptable.

And what WOULD the government do if all Americans quit smoking & stopped paying the ridiculous tax rates? Maybe they'll quadruple the rates on booze? They aren't called sin taxes for nothing.

"But my question to Eric is this - so if a majority favor something it's OK? Suppose they are fanatics?"

If the majority of Congress, Parliament, or whatever the legislative body is in a particular country, votes a law, and this is upheld by the Supreme Court, Constitutional Court etc., then it's OK. That's how democracy works, like it or not. If the majority of people are fanatic, you will have fanatic laws. I don't think banning smoke in public places is fanatic.

Tha market doesn't work because there is always

"But my question to Eric is this - so if a majority favor something it's OK? Suppose they are fanatics?"

What I said is that if the majority of Congress, Parliament, or whatever the legislative body is in a particular country, votes a law, and this is upheld by the Supreme Court, Constitutional Court etc., then it's OK. If the majority of people are fanatic, you will have fanatic laws (provided they are compatible with the constitution). That's how democracy works, like it or not. If you have a better system, I'd like to know.

I don't think banning smoke in public places is fanatic by any stretch of imagination.

Tha market doesn't work because there is always

...always a smoker in a group that goes to a restaurant. But again the main issue is the workers in the restaurant/bar etc. : why do they have to breathe second-hand smoke for 8 hours a day? And don't say they could get another job, because SOMEONE has to do the job.

Actually, Carrybean, without for a moment wishing the horror of addiction to nicotine (or the various undisclosed chemical additives in cigarettes) on any individual or group, you are bang on. Just a couple years ago the most comprehensive analysis ever concluded that in fact smoking reduces the overall cost to the government/public due to shortened life span. Less years alive, especially less years when the need for assistance typically is highest, leads to lower overall expenditures, even allowing for the cost of smoking related illnesses. That's one of the reasons you don't see mention of saving public dollars in antitobacco campaigns anymore. Savings are reduction in human suffering and gains in quality of life, not fiscal.

What I find amusing is when travellers talk about going to the brown cafes in Amsterdam (and I could care less whether they do or not) there is never a negative comment that I have seen.

But mention having a cigarette and oh boy!

Also, our governor Arnold had a large tent constructed on the grounds behind his offices so that he and his cronies could go there and smoke their cigars. I always wondered if that was paid by the CA taxpayers..especially with all of the strict smoking laws in CA.

It does not bother me about the antismoking laws but now that I have read various cities are passing laws regarding what foods restaurants cannot serve I do wonder at what point people are going to get fed up with the Nanny laws that our officials are passing.

It will be interesting to see what the future brings.

And at least in CA, with something like 1/3 of the population said to be obese, more and more citizens being diagnosed with diabeties and something like 40% of the residents not having health insurance I would image that this is going to have a large impact on the taxpapers of CA.

"And don't say they could get another job, because SOMEONE has to do the job."

Why? If a bar owner can't hire staff because they won't work in a smoke-filled environment, then don't you think he'd either close down or go non-smoking?

And if there's always a smoker in a group that wants to go to a smoking restaurant, then it's up to that group to decide whether to accomidate them or not. If I'm the only guy in our group that likes Thai food, the group doesn't all say OK to a Thai place because I want to go there.

Then let's do away with all work safety regulations. You know, like those funny hard hats, security belts, protective glasses and so on. It's the free market baby!

The slippery slope fallacy is an embarrassing "argument," a testimony to the stupidity (and addiction?) of those who foist it on thinking individuals.

Unlike eating hamburgers or drinking alcohol, smoking kills the person sitting next to you. If one can't comprehend <i>that</i>, one has more urgent problems to consider.

...and the next place smoking should be banned is in hotels..Marriot has recently announced a no smoking policy in all of its hotels although I don't remember if it's just in the USA or worldwide.

Cigarette smoking in hotel of course subjects the next person unfortunate enough to have to use the room of a smoker suseptible to the secondary carcinogens spewed into the air, have to smell it but most importantly represents a distinct safety threat as how many devastating fires have been caused by some idiot smoking in bed....

Simply all hotel rooms should be no smoking with cigarette smoking detectors to make sure it is enforced.

I don't understand you...hotels, restaurant, bars..are not public places, are private properties. I think the owner has to have the right of deciding what kind of patrons he wants to have. Some of them want you to dress very formal (ties, no jeans) and no one seems to dare. You just don't go if you don't want to dress like that. So, if you smoke, don't go to a non-smoking place and if you are not a smoker..don't go to smoking places. Public places are the places where you can't avoid to go : stations, airports, hospitals, schools.. and then I agree they have to be totally smoke free. But I don't see why you have to enforce a ban for smoking in hotels. If you don't like that hotel..just don't go. I don't go to non smoking ones.

&lt;I think the owner has to have the right of deciding what kind of patrons he wants to&gt;

Strongly disagree - a return to days of segregation perhaps if a hotel owner or cafe owner doesn't like blacks, gays, women, etc. don't think so!

What if a &quot;private business owner&quot; doesn't like minimum wage laws, workplace safety laws, etc.??

It's HIS business, right, &quot;private property&quot;? So he can do what he wants! Don't like it?? Work someplace else!

What a moronic, embarrasssing, pitiful &quot;argument.&quot;

I'll presume it's a result of nicotine addiction and not utter stupidity.