Before you issue your fatwa, for the record, I don't smoke tobacco. Nor do I have a problem with places banning smoking -- I just believe it should never have b

Before you issue your fatwa, for the record, I don't smoke tobacco. Nor do I have a problem with places banning smoking -- I just believe it should never have been a law. > Surely we banned it because it is highly irritating to people who don't smoke? That part is correct. > The medical aspect was used to win the argument with selfish smokers who don't give a crap about the well being of other people. Stated another way, the second-hand smoke research was glommed onto by puritanicals who enjoy bossing people around - because the irration argument would never stand up in a legislative committee or a court of law - it would have rightfully been called a blue-nose law. Maybe the term "bossing people around" is a bit loaded but without the second-hand smoke studies, no one would have felt the need to ban smoking everywhere. Another system might have emerged where some places ban smoking and others don't. There's a restaurant in my town that banned minors instead of smokers to comply with our state law (actually not a bad trade, imo.) But that wasn't good enough for some -- smoking had to be banned everywhere -- because certain people felt entitled to walk into an arbitrary venue and not have to smell cigarette smoke -- hence the use of the terms "puritanical" and "bossing people around."