It's about virtue signaling and control. A few years back the city imposed a total ban on smoking in restaurants, theaters, bars, etc. (I think they made an exception for back rooms where politicians hammered out deals, but I'm not sure about that.) The argument was that it was for the customer's health. The counter was, "Well, don't go there, then." Then the cry was, "We have to look out for the employees' health." The counter was, "They can work somewhere else." It was suggested instead that the city devise three signs that each establishment could use. "No smoking", "Smoking", or "Smoking only in designated areas". That didn't go anywhere. So, "Smoke Free" is the law. I think it's stupid.

BTW, I have never smoked in my life and the smell of smoke makes me nauseous. I can't even stand to sit near a person that reeks of smoke. Okay, if he's there first, I can move. It's all about virtue signaling and control.

I think, to a large degree, that smokers are responsible for their own lack of acceptance. I used to work in an office (at least 40 years ago) that allowed smoking as most of them at the time did. I had a desk that was next to a woman's who smoked. When she smoked she did absolutely NOTHING to prevent her smoke from drifting into my space and my face. I hated her guts. I was thrilled when she was moved to another office. If she had been the SLIGHTEST bit aware of how rude she was by blowing her smoke my way I probably wouldn't have cared that she smoked as it was common everywhere anyway. This kind of thoughtless behavior was probably a main reason that policies, and then laws, against smoking in common areas were established. As far as I'm concerned smokers have nobody but themselves to blame for the anti-smoking laws. Unfortunately, too many of them cared for nobody but themselves when it came to smoking in public.

I remember 40 years ago, too, and it wasn't like you pretend. I grew up in a non-smoking home, but it didn't bother me in the least to go places with smoking. It was likewise for the vast majority of people. The proof is that people took up smoking without thinking about how supposedly offensive it was, because they were not offended themselves!

.."Men go mad in herds and only come to their senses one at a time". Mackay..

..and I might add .."that is, if they do at all".

Geez, Ellen. The direction of smoke is a product of air currents not individual will. And it sounds as though you neither politely asked the woman for a fair and reasonable accommodation or did anything to move your desk or your own position but preferred instead to smolder in resentment and play the victim. You can't accuse her of thoughtlessness if you never bothered to plant your thought in her mind. The rest of your statement--that smokers deserve to be categorically punished--is boilerplate bigot.

Nope. Smoke invades others space and causes health problems.

True, but if a place wants to allow smoking and they post a sign telling me that, then I don't have to go there. Problem solved. But the city just told everyone that no one could smoke in any establishment. To me that is overreach. None of the city's business inside a private establishment.

When my state changed its law it was markedly noticeable. A store that allows smoking discriminated against those with asthma. Cannot be done without risk of a deserved lawsuit. Also those with congestive heart failure and those with emphysema. Even if they are not smart enough and continue smoking.

"A store that allows smoking discriminated against those with asthma."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It isn't discrimination if the store tells one and all that they allow smoking. They do not ban asthmatics or anybody else. They just allow smokers to smoke in the store. That isn't discrimination. If the second hand smoke causes problems for asthmatics, then if the sign on the door says that smoking is allowed, and the asthmatic still goes in, then it's on him, not the store. No discrimination here.

You do not get it or are purposely being obtuse. Read the case in Philadelphia regarding asthmatics and McDonalds.

You have a link for that? I tried to google it and only found lists of locations for mcdonalds and doctors treating asthma in Philadelphia. More specific information might help.

1980s mothers of asthmatics v, McDonald’s.

I found the cases you referenced. I get it that the ADA has required a lot of changes in how we do things, and in some respects that is sad since, in the name of "protecting" one group, another group gets hammered. The enforcement of the ADA rules have caused a lot of needless damage.

Case in point, in a small town where I used to live and work, a family moved in with a disabled child. The lunch room in the elementary school was on the lower floor, but all the classrooms were on the upper level. (The school was built on a slope with the main entrance in the upper level.) The kids couldn't get his wheel chair down the stairs. The short term solution was to bring his lunch up to him and have one or two kids eat with him. That wasn't good enough for the parents so they went to court and won. The district was forced to put in an elevator so the kid could get up and down. The elevator cost about $30,000 (1980's) which was a lot in those days. However, right before the elevator was finished, the family moved. They still finished the elevator, but now they had no immediate use for it. Turns out this family had done the same thing to another district just south of ours.

So, anyway, I'll accept your definition, in this case, of discrimination. Just something else that needs to be changed, but probably won't be. I still believe that it if people don't like how a store does business they can always go somewhere else. What if the odor of french fries or frying beef patties is nauseating to someone? Should they be allowed to sue?

For sure they can try.

In my other post I agreed to accept your definition of discrimination, but I think I'll take that back. As long as asthmatics are not barred because of their health situation,or the color of their skin, for example, I don't see how it can be called discrimination. Would a store that allowed smokers inside be guilty of creating a bad atmosphere for others? Probably, but I don't think that qualifies as discrimination. But you are right, they would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit.

CDC: Asthma death rates decreased 1960-1977, then increased through 1995. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pre...
CDC: asthma prevalence increased from 1980-2004.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/dat...
CDC: asthma prevalence increased since 2001, despite smoking bans and quitting
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pre...

"Prohibitionists use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post-
.. for stability, not illumination"..

Well according to science no it doesn't.You've been deceived.

Um, tbgr, I’ve read the studies. You are wrong.

Bodily odors invade others' space? Shall we forbid joggers from running and them stopping off at Starbucks?

As for health problems, the article gave serious reason to doubt those claims. You should address those reasons.

Forget Starbucks. How about an airplane?

All airplanes allow service dogs on. What about people who have allergies to dogs? Which "group" gets preferential treatment?

The squeaky ones.

Walter Thomas reread your comment and notice how ridiculously desperate you sound. Happily, most Americans aren’t as ignorant on this issue as you pretend to be.

Somewhat like these comments.

Oh, good grief - that's still a question???

I have never smoked. Have loved those who do.Do not consider myself a smart person but I see things and try to pay attention to cause and effect.

I knew it was about control from the first virtue-signaling nonsensical smoke signals that were sent up from sea to shining sea.

What are you doing in here? Sanity is not permitted, especially on this topic.

The worst are some of the ex-smokers. They go all foaming at the mouth on the subject.

Busybodies with empty lives.

they ARE the worst...
probably because of their bodies.. cant handle the 2nd hand smoke, similar to a small child

Or 'reformed' alcoholics. UGH

SMOKED.........ANYTHING?
I say that, because people who smoke POT will say, they have never smoked....

Smoking bans have never been about health; they're about control.

On second hand smoke: The majority of studies—over 70 studies including the two most robust studies (Boffetta and Engstrom & Kabet showed no adverse effects under normal exposures). The second hand smoke ruse was developed to stigmatize and denormalize smoking and smokers.

See Boffetta, et al: Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 90, No. 19, October 7, 1998: "public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure." (This case-control study used data from the IARC. The period of enrollment of case and control subjects was from 1988 to 1994--16 years; IARC=International Agency for Research on Cancer.}

This large study looked at 38 years worth of data: Enstrom, JE and Kabat, GC. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 BMJ 2003; 326:1057.This study found "No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease." (This prospective study used American Cancer Society dataset.)

Smoking bans have never been about health, it is about the irresistible urge among some to be busy-bodies. And of course the satisfaction of being a "special" class of homo sapiens. I have been a non-smoker, an occasional smoker and an ex-smoker. But I have always been a "smoke em if you've got em" companion or hostess.

I admire women who aren't threatened by words like hostess, maybe actress, heiress, etc.

Dominatrix?

For that, a standing O.

Unless the customer wants one, in which case, he can't have it, unless he begs.

So we've met.

You tipped.

Well worth it.

It's better usage despite what the illiterate think. It tells the reader two things in one word. If the reader has a problem with that, it's his problem.

As an example of antismoker propaganda, consider the false reports of 'heart attack miracles' after bans were imposed. See Shetty, K. D., DeLeire, T., White, C. and Bhattacharya, J. (2011), Changes in U.S. hospitalization and mortality rates following smoking bans. J. Pol. Anal. Manage., 30: 6–28. doi:10.1002/pam.20548

Abstract: "U.S. state and local governments have increasingly adopted restrictions on smoking in public places. This paper analyzes nationally representative databases, including the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, to compare short-term changes in mortality and hospitalization rates in smoking-restricted regions with control regions. In contrast with smaller regional studies, we find that smoking bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases. An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a smoking ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature."

but but but TRUMP!

No drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes was a father's advice to his children. It was generated by POTUS' grief over the destructive habits, and untimely death of his beloved brother Fred.

I've learned it all the hard way and I'm as grateful as surprised that I'm still here at 77 and upright.

77 is the new 70 I have heard.. is that true?

I drew the line at sixty-nine.

As I have oft times noted, drawing a line at 69 is a whole lot better than 'walkin the line' at 69.

But that's because I was in prison.