I disagree. Listen, it rubs my conservative (personal liberty) instincts the wrong way to guys but you cannot deny the fact that smoking overall and to a lesser degree in private is a huge burden on public health costs. Personally, I have always found smoking to be offensive. It's a violation of the non-smokers rights to have smoke blown or drafting right into your face. The smoker can't control it and it just flat out stinks.

It seems like the argument I'm hearing is that the "regulars" are smokers and are the ones being driven out...and that the walk-up business (less reliable/steady) is non-smokers. If that's true, then I'd think the "regulars" would embrace becoming members in order to maintain their ability to smoke.

I think you'd have to try to structure it in a similar manner to the bars (AKA "drinking clubs") in Salt Lake City where you pay a "membership fee" (which is really just a cover) to get in and drink. SLC public establishments aren't allowed to serve alcohol (damn Mormons) and that's how the bars there get around that law...they're not "public", they're private clubs.

Maybe it would work. I don't mind the concept because it would definately be an incentive for the owner to eliminate the smoking all together in the long run. I mean, why put up with the hassle of it all?

Dude, a privately-owned business is often (almost always?) considered a public place. Restaurants, bars, etc. are all "public places". Hence my wondering about whether the law would be interpreted differently if you specifically structured your business as a private club. Just being privately-owned doesn't cut it.

You may have missed this post "I am not saying smoking should be allowed in PUBLIC, I am talking about a a private business Where the OWNER allows smoking and you have the right not to enter! Sorry for yelling"

If an establishment has a sign posted that says smoking is allowed then how is that an infringement on the rights or health of somebody voluntarily entering the premises?

Exhaust from vehicles is hazardous to your health as well. I find deisel exhaust to be particularly annoying. How about exhaust and deisel free cities?

Have you heard of the Clean Air Act? If you lived downwind of certain types of factories you'd thank your lucky stars it exists. Ever had an emissions test done on your car?

I hear you amigo. My point is restaurants, bars open to the public are public places which are owned privately. Surely you would not argue that the kitchen of said bar/rest. is a private place therefore it's ok for the owner not to keep up with proper health codes. Same with smoking IMO.

You have a valid point, and that should be an option if a ban is passed. You still allow a person his rights.

Well I see your point but we will have to agree to disagree :)

emissions tests allow a certain level of pollutants. It isn't an outright ban.

Because eventhough it is privately owned it is open to the public and therefore creates an open air health hazard IMO.

Cigarettes/cigars/etc. aren't being banned either. Just restricted from certain places. The level in those places must be zero.

Or the smokers could just stay inside while I wipe dogshit all over their clothes so they could smell it all night.

How does it create an open air health hazard?