Rich, I'm not clear on your comments on smoking. Could you please define "public place" as you are using it in this discussion?

I'm not speaking for Rich, but when I referred to "public place" I'm using the spirit of NY's legal definition that means any indoor location open to the public and/or employees. This means all businesses, indoor shopping centers, restaurants, taverns, etc. Basically, any place that is not open-air. I prefer that all of these places be smoke-free.

While I do understand the arguments that some may pose, stating that if a patron doesn't like the smoke then he/she can leave. But, what we probably failed to mention on the show is that the stronger legal argument is that the employees are subjected to harmful substances. It is the moral equivalent to working where hostile sexual comments are being made. Sure, you can quit but the onus is on the employer to protect the employee from harm.

I find it interesting because it seems like you guys are suggesting that it's okay for people to smoke in actual public (i.e. taxpayer-paid-for) places so long as those places are outdoors and away from an entrance. At least with taxpayer-paid property, you'd have a case that the taxpayers were part owners with a right to set the rules. But when it comes to private property paid for by a private individual or organization, you seem to suggest that it is okay for non-owners to butt in and dictate terms to the owner. That confuses me.

But going down the path of your other point, I'd like to ask you then, John, should smoking be banned in private homes where non-smokers live? After all, adult non-smokers could move out, but isn't the onus on the property owner to protect the residents from harm? And in the case of children, they really can't just move out.

I would argue that there is a difference between a private place like someone's home, and a private establishment like a bar or restaurant.

For the most part I believe that smokers shouldn't be allowed any closer to me, than the moon. But then they'd only fill Mar Tranquillitatis with their butts and filters.

Please explain to me why property that one purchases for one's own intended purposes is different from, well, property that one purchases for one's own intended purposes. Aside from your personal whimsy, what gives you the right to control a person's restaurant but not their home?

Well, if you want to go down that alley then I suppose we should.

Yes, I do believe that society/government has the responsibility to protect its citizens from harm. That's why we have laws that require public places and business to meet safety standards. And yes, even our own homes are required to meet safety standards, but they are less stringent because they are not open to the public. There is an assumption that businesses meet a certain level of safety. When you walk into a store or restaurant you should not be put in danger. We're not talking about someone's choice of bad wallpaper here. If a business owner wants to decorate the place in hideous colors then business may suffer, but no one is in danger. Kirsten, are you saying that it would be OK for a business to decorate their showroom with broken glass and rusted knives? That because they own the place, they can do whatever they want? That it's the customers' and employees' fault for getting tetanus? Second-hand smoke is a health hazard, not just an annoyance.

In the home, an adult can leave. In the home, an adult can reason with the other adult(s) and change policy. In the home, an adult that shares ownership of the property even has the right to negotiate to limit or cease the smoking, even to the point of taking legal action. But, children do not have any of these powers. Hopefully, smoking will be taken even more seriously in the future and child-endangerment laws can be invoked.

And finally, yes. An outdoor public place is fine. It is not the act of smoking that is offensive and dangerous. It's the smoke. If the open air dissipates the smoke, the danger is removed...except for the smoker.