Yeah! I remember them talking about it in the mid-90's.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032601893.html

Hi Budman! That is wonderful news! We just got back from a weekend trip to Ohio, and it was SO great to go ourt after dinner with friends and have a smoke free drink and social hour. We in Louisville will see that happen july 1, but it will take a while for the state to wake up. I hear that Tennessee is going that route, too. Finally, a chance for all people to be able to enjoy going out and working in a non-toxic environment!

Actually, Baltimore city & several other counties in MD have already passed smoking bans so regardless if the state passes the law or not (which they will & the Gov will sign off on it), you still won't be able to smoke in Baltimore area.

Sure you'll still be able to smoke in the Baltimore area. Just not in restaurants and bars.

Restaurants I can understand, but I think it's ridiculous banning cigarette smoking in places where people are consuming a narcotic, namely alcohol.

Smoking may cause lung cancer in 30 or 40 years, but it doesn't cause you to forget who you are, where you are and what you're doing in a few hours.

Great news. Here in Austin, TX we've been smoke free for years, and I love it.

I'm cool with it

I don't smoke and I don't like to eat in restaurants with smokers. But I believe in private property rights. Most likely, a supermajority of restaurants, especially restaurants of quality, would ban smoking from their restaurants whether a government mandate forced them to do so or not. It is 2007 and not 1947. The national culture has changed in sixty years; a vast majority of American adults do not smoke.

"Most likely, a supermajority of restaurants, especially restaurants of quality, would ban smoking from their restaurants..."

I hate to tell you this, George, but that has not happened...if it had, we wouldn't need these laws

I don't wish to be argumentative- but alcohol is NOT a narcotic. There is nothing in alcohol which is naturally addictive - and alcohol - esp red wine - is actually healthy for many people. The problems arise with abuse of alcohol - not it;s light or moderate use.

And an alcoholic is ruinng only their own health, not those of everyone living or working around them. No one should have to work in an atmosphere full of cigarette smoke - any more than they would one full of asbestos. And it IS the government's job to regulate substances that can harm the health of people not voluntarily consuming them.

. . . and this has to do with travel how?

I'll tell you how it relates to travel. I work as a musician and have all my life. My respiratory system is in terrible shape. In fact, I've had bronchitis for 2 weeks and 3 medication. When my husband and I pick things to do, the smoking situation is one of the first things we consider. I want a non-smoking hotel room and can't dance/listen to music in smoky venues anymore. We frequently select weekend destinations based on that criteria, because we love to go out dancing.

Currently I'm very picky about where to go out to eat, etc... I always make sure it's NOT the county I live in because of all the smokers. I truly believe there are lots of others who would rather be in non smoking enviroments esp if they were on vacation.

nytraveler: alcohol is indeed a narcotic. It is physically addictive (if you believe "there is nothing in alcohol which is naturally addictive", simply watch someone having DTs during withdrawal from it), and when consumed in quantity, it produces narcosis. In the strictest sense of word it is a narcotic. In fact, aside from opiates it's one of the few true narcotics that exist in the drug world. But we've been culturally conditioned to view it as something other than a drug.