You can't yell at a guy for being right. (Well about everything except the die part.)

Cmon now, Timmy Pie. Every single one of us has a nasty habit, and every single one of us is a nuisance to someone several times a week. Besides, I know plenty of people who aren't "too weak", but they have chosen--as adults--to smoke. You know, with it being legal and all.

this thread is embarrasing

Blah blah blah. It's always the same argument between smokers and non-smokers.

As a smoker, yes I know it's bad for me, no I don't intend on quitting anytime soon because I know I can't (sure you say it's easy, but hell no it isn't for me). As far as smoking indoors/outdoors... I prefer smoking outdoors anyway. I think it's ridiculous to ban smoking outdoors though. Goodness....

You also live in Southern California, where weather is hardly ever inclement. Might explain the preference.

Not really, even when I'm in places where you CAN smoke indoors, ie: Vegas, Portland, etc... I find I rather go outside to smoke. I can understand a non-smoker's discontent for secondhand smoke, because sometimes it does annoy me too (inside a bar/show, etc.) HOWEVER I think it is bullshit to put all these laws about being able to smoke in private/public places.

Instead of comparing cigarette smoking bans to alcohol, we should compare it to something else...like promiscuous sex. One, the use of contraceptives is not legally required...it's "just the right thing to do". Two, 1 out of 7 condoms fail. Three, in the mid-seventies there were 3 known STD's--all were curable. Now there are more than 25 and most of them have no known cure. Now, for those of you who are adament about ridding this country of cigarette smoke, would you then be inclined to prohibit by law sex before marriage and with multiple partners? I think that's a hell no for most of you. And trust me, you want to talk about a nuisance? Warts, leakage, cervical cancer, immune deficiencies---those sound like nuisances. Comparable to smoking, there are oftentimes nasty smells along with sex due to a lack of cleanliness--but not comparable to smoking, there are life-threatening and other serious health risks that exist in your "right" to have as much sex as you want. After all, it feels good don't it? And these risks are not simply one person harming themselves. It is people passing on to others horrible diseases--consciously or not. And I understand the argument about people smoking in public places is forcing another to smell and inhale the second-hand smoke. However, please don't argue you then that the comparable discussion about sex would have to be rape, because the issue here is not whether or not people are forced to do it. The issue is whether or not the government should be about the business of controlling all aspects of our lives.

Now, for those of you who continue to misuse and misquote the preamble to the constitution of the United States and claim that the government's role is to "preserve and protect", I think you are significantly mistaken and are confusing the government with the nifty motto of local law enforcement. The preamble says this:

" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This in no way has anything to do with preserving and protecting one special interest groups'(non-smokers) opinion. The government is to promote the proper thing, not enact pages and pages of laws.

Again, this presupposes that I'm doing it (would voter for the illegalization of tobacco smoking) for the smoker -- I'm not, I'm doing it for myself. Promiscuous sex doesn't affect me, except when I voluntarily participate in it, then it's my fault, my responsibility.

Now, if someone with aids were to throw their blood at me or something, then it'd be comparable. But funny, that is illegal -- it's called a physical attack.

I just want to point out that somehow I have aligned on the same side as Nobody, druucifer and Smilin' Joe Hegel on this issue. This may be the first and only time for this odd grouping.

these are all state laws so that language doesn't apply so much - states can regulate smoking all they want as long as they have a rational reason for doing so - which is health. they may test the boundaries of the rational basis test, however, if they start banning smoking outdoors or in private residences.

a federal smoking law would probably be based on the federal commerce clause power and I expect the way the commerce clase jurisprudence has been going over the past 70 years the Court would find a federal smoking ban constitutional as well...depending on Roberts/Alito who would probably see things differently.

Now hold on a minute. How did I get the cutsy little name and no one else? I will, for my own ego, presume that you're saying this as a term of endearment rather than mockery.