I think it would be best for this sort of thing to be handled at the county or town level. That said, banning smoking in restaurants seems fair and wise. A smoker should be able to go without a smoke for 1 1/2 hours. Bars not attached to restaurants, on the other hand, should be able to set their own rules on smoking. Restaurants and bars seem to not have much of an overlapping of clientele.

Employees' lungs don't know the difference between a bar and a restaurant. The air-borne carcinogens in smoke kill people in bars <i>and</i> restaurants (and all enclosed workplaces).

Or can someone &quot;rationalize&quot; why the health of a restaurant employee is worthy of protection, but that of a bar employee is not?

Eventually, everybody stops smoking....

Smoking bans in restaurants and bars are so commonplace now that, IMHO, they've become totally uninteresting.

But how about the new experiment at the Westin hotels? It turns out that they have become the first major 'smoke-free' hotel in the country.

If you ask me, I think this is a moronic idea. I fail to understand why anyone needs this.

I know that 'smoking rooms reek' (and all comments like that), but how often have you requested a non-smoking room and got stuck in a smoking one? I travel a lot on business, and this hasn't happened in the past 3 years!

I think the Westin's policy is great. I've chosen to stay at the Comfort Inn Midtown in Manhattan becuase it was the only non smoking hotel available.

The irony of this issue: the whole idea is to &quot;protect&quot; the restaurant/bar employee, not the patron. After all how many patrons really spend enough time to actually get cancer from that secondhand smoke? If you are spending that much time in a bar, then you have a bigger problem than secondhand smoke.

Speaking as a restaurant owner (who chose to ban smoking two years before the legal ban), guess who the biggest offenders of the smoking ban are? You guessed it. The staff absolutely love their smoking breaks. I'm convinced some smoke just to GET a smoking break.

BTW, I voted against the ban. I think it violates my rights as a private business owner. Nobody - Absolutely Nobody - is forced to walk through those doors - patron or staff.

Next: Ban those Dangerous Dartboards!!!

Joan,

You hit it right on the head.

As a musician, I've had the choice of either working in stinking places all my life or not working. Period. I have chronic lung problems now from years of exposure. My musician friends have had premature cancer, heart problems, etc as well. I can no longer go out to dance or hear music in my city (Louisville) which has a &quot;semi&quot; ban. We frequently travel out of town to smokefree places to do so. People will not stop going out because they can't smoke indoors. It's been proven. And I hate hearing all these ridiculous people whining about what government will take away next. Get over it- we're sick of smelling like smoke and hacking and suffering the same problems as those who choose to kill themselves.

joan, although my husband vehemently hates cigarette smoke, he allowed his staff smoking breaks when the restaurants were off the wait and towards the end of the night.

He figured he'd rather let them smoke than deal with nicotine withdrawels.

Well, yeah, GoT, we must allow smoking breaks. But what about the nonsmokers? They stay behind and begin the nightly cleanup while the smokers take that much needed break. There's been many times I've caught staff smoking after closing all throughout the restaurant. Drives me crazy that they're so intent on breaking the rule that was made to protect them.

LLindac, you do have more of a choice than you say. You could teach music, write music, work weddings, turn classical (no smoking in concert or banquet halls), work as a studio musician, etc. The choice is (was) yours. I believe you're the one doing the whining!

Joan, you obviously don't know anything about pop music. I play by ear, you don't teach that. I do play church and weddings, but most of my big gigs I've booked by being heard in public. I also play the calliope on our local steamboat, the Belle of Louisville. Luckily, I now play primarily private gigs and the smoking generally occurs outside the room, as people are becoming more cooperative about it. And yes, I write, but it's really tough to sell songs and make money that way. Just about every band out there has paid their dues from working the smoky club circuits.

Actually I'm married to a musician, so I do know a little about what I'm talking about!

All that is beside the point: we all make choices. I don't like having my choice taken away (to run my biz the way I choose). You chose whether to accept those bar gigs, one at a time. Entrepreneurs can no longer choose whether they want to allow smoking - the choice is being made by people who don't want &quot;to stink&quot;. Under the guise of protecting the workforce (who Chose to work there, pure and simple). In my opinion, it ain't about protecting the workers, it's about the patrons. They don't want the inconvenience of being smelly. That's why everybody voted for the ban. But in doing so they definitely took away the rights of a few.

Your choice &quot;argument&quot; is so ridiculous I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry (that some people hold such embarrassing beliefs).

If one &quot;chooses&quot; to work in a coal mine, then who cares about all the safety measures in place to protect them? Let 'em die! It's their choice!

And how about another air-borne carcinogen, asbestos? Construction workers choose their jobs too, right? Why ban asbestos?

Let's get rid of <i>all</i> workplace safety regulations and just let people decide what risks they're &quot;willing&quot; to take.

I prefer to travel to locations that bans air-borne carcinogens in enclosed spaces (tobacco smoke). Seems like I'm in the majority, so I guess I choose democracy.

It looks like tomorrow, Friday, is the last day you can go into a bar or restaurant or private club and smoke in New Jersey. Will this law get overturned from a lawsuit because it allows smoking in the casinos. ((b))

It looks like there was a pretty lengthy gap before the last post, so I don't know if some of the previous posters will see this, but here goes.

I can't believe how many people are willing to ignore the interests of the minority. Gekko's most recent post was very telling. He/she said &quot;I'm in the majority, so I guess I choose democracy&quot;. Does that mean the majority should be able to impose their will on the minority in any circumstance? Last time I checked this was a Constitutional Republic. That's because our Founding Fathers feared the mob rule effect of pure democracy.

...and speaking of the Constitution, I don't think it affords me the right to eat at Ruby Tuesdays. It seems we all agree that the smoking population is relatively small (and doesn't include me, by the way). We then conclude that this minority shouldn't impact the majority who prefer smoke free locations. I agree completely. What many of you are forgetting, though, is that there are an awful lot of restaurants out there. When they are left alone, some choose to cater to a smoking (or non-smoke free) crowd while many others ban smoking on their own. What a beautiful system.

In answer to the original question about affecting my travel plans, I would say the following. As a non-smoker, these laws don't directly impact me. As a lover of freedom though, I will be inclined to travel to states that seem to share my values.

That's an interesting point, milford. I must say though that if your travel plans were limited to states that allow restaurants to choose for themselves, I'm afraid your options are dwindling fast. I've lost track, but how many major states now have banned smoking in restaurants?

Although I don't know how many states now have bans Neopolitan, your point is well taken. Admittedly, I may have overstated my &quot;threat&quot; about choosing travel destinations based on a states attacks on freedom. After all, I LIVE in a state that is one of the worst offenders for such things. I do think though, that state prohibitions and similar government intrusion have played some role in my past travel plans. For example, with all the natural beauty and travel opportunities that California has to offer, I've never been. Every time I consider a trip there, I'm turned off by all the crazy legislation that I hear about. I would also mention that prohibitions on gambling (which I find equally distasteful) obviously have substantial effects on travel plans.

Having just returned from California, I think it's great and we visit yearly. They are trying to ban smoking on golf courses and at bus stops. LOL! It's great to sit at a bar and have dinner when you don't feel like reserving a table. Oh, and CA still allows you to taste wine for free!

When people talk about government controls I think they forget one thing. the founding fathers gave us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Now smoking may be the pusuit of happiness for some (they may even argue liberty but I don;t see how they can support it) but that is trumped by everyone's right to life. This means that something that is proven dangerous to other's people's lives - as is smoking - can be banned based on the fact that their right to stay alive trumps your pursuit of happiness. (They did put those freedoms in order for a reason.)

As for obesity - yes - this is a huge problem. But this doesn't endanger anyone else's life - so I don;t see how you could regulate it. Although we should certainly encourage more healthy lifetyles.

I will stipulate that there is a second had risk from smoking, although there are reputable professionals who would debate that. I hope nytraveler would concede though, that there is no risk to people who are neither in or near the building with the smoker. So again, I should have the freedom to eat at an establishment that allows smoking, nytraveler should have the freedom to choose a restaurant that doesn't permit smoking, the proprietor should have the freedom to decide which patrons to compete for, and the employees should decide where and for how much they wish to work.

To clarify, I have no problem with the most aggressive of smoking bans in public (meaning owned and/or operated by the government)buildings. However, as I mentioned in my prior post, you do not have a constitutional right to demand that a privately owned business operate based on your preferences.