I’m not sure it’s an issue of what is a “public space.” Aren’t tobacco bans tied either to the city’s zoning ordninances or food/beverage licensing regulations? I think a city’s citizens have the right to, through their government, decide what is prohibited to take place around their food. Do you take exception to the requirement that a restaurant secure a food handler’s permit and a liquor license? If not, then yr problem must be with the regulation of tobacco only, and that doesn’t make sense to me.

That said, I join in Ben Kalafut’s hope for “legal middle ground” on the issue. When enough regulation is in place to assuage the public outcry, we’ll probably see cities create the “tobacco license” for establishments that want to bring smokers back on the basis of smoking.

The most obnoxious problem remains: now that the cold weather is here I find it more difficult to walk from point A to point B without having something waft in my face that makes my eyes sting, my nose and throat itch, makes me cough, and increases my risk for a few diseases I’d like to avoid.

Now that the status quo bias is broken I’m fine with letting restaurants and bars start allowing smoking again so long as there’s a warning sign posted prominently on the door, but sidewalks, paths, etc.–especially public staircases and building entries–should be off-limits to smoking. “The world is my weeder” is the prevailing attitude among cigarette smokers. “I should be able to do this where I want, when I want, and let nonconsenting parties cough and wheeze and maybe get cancer!”. Ridiculous–there shouldn’t even be a need for “no smoking” signs. There should not be a presumption that one can impose such noxious stuff on others. I understand that that’s not you, but the prevalence of that attitude and the daily experience nonsmokers have of it isn’t working in your favor.

And as long as walkways and the like are not off limits pressure for bans will continue. Busybody concern about cancer wasn’t the only reason for broad support of public smoking bans–(formerly) not being able to go out is frequently cited, and the general rudeness of smokers is still aggravating to myself and many others.

Smoker shortsightedness has to be faulted at least as much as government or nonsmoker shortsightedness.

I’d like to think that we can find legal middle ground in this. I can have whiskey but cannot dissolve noxious stuff in grain alcohol, put it in a spray bottle, and mist people with it.

You’ve made me pine for warmer climates I have lived in. I too used to enjoy a cigar after dinner in the evening (usually with some CC or Crown Royal on the rocks) on my porch in Oakland, California. I tried to continue the tradition after I moved back to Toronto, but the climate there made it either too hot or too cool to really sit outside. I just stopped smoking cigars because it was unpleasant.

Since then, my mom bought me some fine Cohiba Churchills on a recent trip to Havana. I tried one: I couldn’t smoke it. I got a headache and my mouth just felt poisonous. Alas.

It was still so nice though….

Bars and restaurants aren’t public spaces. Why can’t we let the owner decide whether to allow smoking? If people , lie you, want to avoid exposure to smoke then you can find a different place to patronize. If one place want to allow cigars but not cigarettes, they can.

In Virginia a smoking ban takes effect at the end of the month, but 60+ percent of restaurants/bars are already smoke free. In other words, without government interference there are plenty of places where you can be free of tobacco smoke.

I love cigars, but I hate cigarettes and I don’t trust most smokers to keep their poison out of my face. Except for dealing with the occasional aggressive drunk, we are not forced to share any of our neighbors’ other vices in public. Smoking is invasive, and I think it is rightfully restricted.

Smoking bans are typically local legislative decisions, so as much as any government decision, we can trust them to represent the view of the community. I haven’t read the new tobacco bill itself, but the bulleted list of the law’s effects (from your link) sound pretty alright to me: stop marketing to kids, force disclosure of what’s really in the products, and remove harmful ingredients to make cigarettes safer. If you have read or read the bill, let us know what you think it really does.