I understand and sympathize with the views of the nonsmokers posting here. Smoking's a foul, nasty habit and it's unfortunate that it must be endured by smokers and nonsmokers alike.

But, how about a little compassion for the smoker? Most of them became addicted as youths, when their judgement was questionable and when they thought they were bulletproof. If quitting tobacco wasn't the torment that it is, I believe most would drop the habit. As a former smoker I can assure you that it's an addiction very tough to beat. Not a day goes by when I don't miss a cigarette, and it's been a very long while since I've had one! Nonsmokers have no idea of the extreme mental and physical discomfort that an addicted smoker experiences when deprived of his 'fix'. Or perhaps they do, and enjoy tormenting those weaker and less godly than themselves. Spanish Inquisition, anyone?

Alcohol addiction is regarded a disease...why isn't tobacco addiction?

This argument isn't about one's right to a smokefree environment. It's about zealotry. There's something in human nature that seeks someone to despise. These days, smokers have become safe and fashionable targets. It can't really be argued that alcohol consumption endangers only the drinker...the evidence of the increasingly rigorous DUI laws indicates otherwise. And if one rants to outlaw homosexuality, on the reasoning that gays are prone to certain diseases that can penetrate the mainstream, one's pilloried for bigotry, as one should be. I hold the *zealous* nonsmoker in about the same regard that I do the aggressive Christian fundamentalist. In fact, they're got a lot in common.

A little tolerance and compassion for the smoker, please. Let them have their smoking areas and let me have my nonsmoking ones. Quit hounding these folks.

Many bartenders are smokers - perhaps, probably but the fallacy of this argument is that they thus can't be harmed by 2nd hand smoke - say they smoke a pack or two a day by themselves and they inhale the equivalent of another pack a day on top of that - this makes them much more even at risk of harming themselves. Right?

ok, last post.

JeffreyJ
"A little tolerance and compassion for the smoker, please. Let them have their smoking areas and let me have my nonsmoking ones. Quit hounding these folks."

Separated areas is exactly the whole point. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for the rest of your post, you are ranting. I for one am an occasional smoker. I don't impose it on others and don't want others to impose their smoke on me.

Better to have my irony be absurd then my ideas. I'm not sure what you're saying about reading vs. understanding. I guess for you the ONLY harm a bar worker faces is from second hand smoke. Convenient. Then, once smoking is banned, you can pat yourself on the back for having saved the bar workers of Paris (today Paris, tomorrow the world).

In my opinion the reason why most, not all, non-smokers cannot abide by seperate facilities for smokers and non-smokers is because the very idea of smoking is intolerable to them. The very notion that someone, somewhere is enjoying a cigarette, in the company of others, whilst drinking coffee or alcohol drives them to say the most ridiculous things.

Not being able to deal with the arguments, they resort to ad hominum attacks. Sad.

Too bad we couldn't set up a simple test: let the bar and cafe owners decide what they would like their establishment to be: smoking or non. Ater one year let us see which establishments are doing better business. If, as many suggest, bans on smoking do not harm and may even help the bottom line, then no doubt even the most hard-core smoker among the bar owners would ban smoking in his/her establishment.

What I am suggesting here is to let the market, not the heavy hand of government decide. I am guessing that the scolds on both far right and far left of the political spectrum will find my idea completely unacceptable. Letting people make informed decisions is coming to be a thing of the past. C'est dommage!