You'll get no argument from me there.

I see this issue as more one of a necessary redefinition and understanding of the basic, vile act of smoking, and the difference between "public" and "private" establishment ownership, with the inescapable restrictions on the owner's freedoms for the former, and the rightful expansions of the owner's liberties for the latter.

Smoking in public is in my view tantamount to "pulmonary assault and battery". And the scientific evidence of the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke strongly support this view, if admittedly in a more objectve, less emotional way.

When an owner agrees to the classification of his establishment as "public" not "private", he agrees to a social and legal contract with the community and the larger society of which he and the establishment belong. This entails compliance with various regulations, social mores, and even the tabous of the community and the society, no matter how objectionable such rules may seem when imposed upon private individuals in a private setting. In most communities you can't open a public establishment then hang a sign saying "We allow you to openly practice here: tattooing, body piercing, fist or knife fighting, assisted suicide, pornographic displays, public sexual intercourse and masterbation, etc."