As for the constitution, the founding fathers gave us a document that is flexable enough to afford us the oppertunity to dictate our laws and rights as times change, would they have known anything about microwave signals when they wrote it, NO they gave us the ability to protect rights as they become threatened...

But that's my point...in the instance of a smoking ban, the choice was made that we, through our government, felt that it was more important to protect our "right" to be free from secondhand smoke than it was to protect our "right" to smoke anywhere we pleased. It was a value call, one which was exactly the type which the founding fathers anticipated, and precisely the reason they gave us representative government and a short list of express and absolute rights. They wanted us to decide for ourselves. And we did.

I don't smoke, and the smell of it in my hair after going out makes me ill. I really enjoy going to restaurants and not having to worry about it.

On the other hand, I think you are right. When is it going to far for the government to ban perfectly legal activities? What is next?

Will it be like Demolition Man, where salt and fat and who knows whatever else is illegal because it is bad for you?

Hell, going anywhere anymore puts you at risk from random violence, dating puts you risk from random violence, health risks, and whatnot. Are they going to outlaw those.

Oh, wait a minute, they are letting companies control peoples out of work hobbies if it puts them at greater risk to have to use their health insurance. People who like to go rock climbing, hang gliding, as so on, are told they can't do it if they work at certain companies.

So I guess it has already started.

Is it the right to be free from smoke, or the right to deprive others their right to smoke? Also, representative governments only work for populations without literacy and means of contacting the central government, we have both of those so I don't think that anything that has to do with my life should be delegated to washington, I believe that it should be a local call, the centralized govn't should take on matters of National reprucussion... not all this petty sh*t

Well first off, we're speaking about state law here. There is no federal law concerning the topic. There could be, but only under very dubious pretexts. And I doubt it will happen either way. So there's no matters of national repercussion that these governments would be focusing on anyway.

As for which right it is, the point is that it is both rights. One side views it as enhancing the right to be free from secondhand smoke, while the other side sees it as diminishing the rights of smokers.

I'm not sure what you mean about the representative government stuff...in my opinion is ONLY works when you have a means of contacting your government. Otherwise, what's representative about it?

I just believe in decentralizing govn't, and If it was a local, not state, law or legislation I'd support it, but only if it were county or city level legislation, because at that level I can go in face to face and tell them how I feel and what this would do to my life...

I'm happy the death sticks are no longer fumigating their 2nd hand smoke in my face!

Smoking ban is not unfair at all. I understand that people have the right to do it. But my right to not want to be around something that causes so many health risks supercedes a smokers right to do it because it causes a detriment to my health.

Understandable, but why is it then that the government should step in and control what a private business owner does in their own establishment? They spent hard earned money on their business and/or was handed down by family, shouldn't they be able to choose whether or not they will go smokefree? It's one thing to help the general populace, it's another thing to force a decision on someone that owns their own establishment. Too me this just begs the question, what's next?

I support the ban. I came from Boston, MA and Orlando, FL and both places went smoke free when I was there (now Champaign did, then they repealed it when they heard all of Illinois has), and both places seemed to be overall happier with it. I like going into bars getting a drink and not having to be smell other person's dirty habit. It's fine to kill yourself with cigarettes, but why should someone who doesn't smoke have to smell it?

Sorry about the guy farting next to you but that was an unpleasent smell one time for what? An hour? Where you could move away? Now imagine if you had smoke all around you when ever you went into the bar? Can't get away with out leaving the bar completely.

But at the same time I have to say the 20 feet from any entrance or opening to smoke is ridiculous especially when it pertains to smoking balconies and such, and offices, not even public business, but private offices? I'm not a smoker but I think most people can sympathize with that especially in this weather.

Besides no one is saying you can't smoke, they are essentially saying that you can't smoke where it is likely to offend other people. Want to smoke at home? Go ahead. Want to smoke in a car? That's fine.

Is it that hard to go outside when you want to smoke? I somehow have always found a way to go to the bathroom when I had to go, and that seems to be working for society so far.

NJ introduced a bill a few years ago to ban smoking in your car. Something about it being a "distraction." Needless to say, I rang my representative every day and reminded him he'd be out of his mind if he voted for it. Once it got to a vote, it failed magnificently.
The whole premise of the smoking ban isn't to stop people from smoking because it affects themselves, it's to stop them from smoking in areas where other people can reasonably be expected to be without having to worry about getting cancer via another person's habit.