The problem with a law like this is that is sets a precedent. We are making something that is legal, illegal (defacto illegal that is) because it can effect others in some negative way. (although the effect of second hand smoke on non smokers health is DRASTICALLY exagerrated).
Where does one draw the line here? If I choose to eat an unhealthy diet that does not effect you, unless I don't have insurance and then your tax dollars have to pay for my health care. Hmm, how can we fix this problem. I know, mandatory fat free diet and regular excersise program for everybody!!
A bit extreme of an example I know but there is a kernel of truth there. As for the worker health arguement, why can't you have a smoking establishment and then have that as a listed "hazard of the job". If you don't want to get burned by fire, don't be a fireman. If you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, don't be a server in a smoking bar.
As for the idea that it worked good in Cali because "bars have patios now". Well that might be because Cali has very nice weather when compared with much of the country. You can't go out on the patio when it's say, 2 degrees outside with a -22 windchill.
Filtherton said something to the effect of "if you don't like not being able to smoke, don't go somewhere where you can't smoke". I agree hold heartedly, the problem is, with this law everyplace is somewhere a person cannot smoke. That is the bad part about the law.
I am a non smoker btw.
