[SheLion]

This is the beginning of the end for smokers. No way does anti-smoking groups settle for this for more than a year before the next step in banning bars, hotels and any public gathering areas.

No, not really.  The smoking bans are being passed everywhere.  A lot of states recognize the bans for what they are worth, and are voting them down.

[R.W.Ratikal]

No one objects to reasonable smoking bans. Non-smoking in restaurants, airplanes, closed automobiles and places where smoking can cause forest fires, etc have always been logical

But the adage that give someone a little power and it will corrupt them is true. We have gone too far with smoking bans.

It's a matter of choice. As long as the smoke does not bother anyone else, it's nobody's business if I smoke. It is certainly not government's business to attempt to control my body for the good of the STATE.

The anti-smoking crusade has been successful. Smoking is now less a problem. It is, to a large degree, not socially acceptable, inconvenient, expensive, and just not worth the trouble.

Since 1964 when warning labels went on cigarette packages, 8 out of 10 Americans used tobacco. Today that number is around 4 in 10. Even smokers now smoke less because it is inconvenient. At work, for example, one must go to a designated place or stand outside in the rain to smoke.

Cigarettes were said to increase the risk of lung cancer, circulatory diseases and heart attacks.

Question: Why then, since smoking has been significantly reduced, does the Center for Disease Control report that the incidents of these diseases on the increase?

Do we owe Joe Camel an apology?