"don't pollute my air space, and i promise not to piss on your desk"

My friend Alan recently reminded me that our county's health department passed a resolution last year that would ban smoking in bars and gambling parlors (it is already prohibited in restaurants, effective in 2003); the ban is scheduled to go into affect July 1. Many bar owners in Kanawha County, WV are pretty upset and irritated over the ban, as well as many of the rules that go along with building outside smoking pavilions (even though they were previously warned of said rules).
With many states, counties, and cities across the country passing similar bans within the last few years, the debate over fairness of such bans is raging. Personally, I agree with public smoking bans, and believe that the moral/philosophical as well as practicality arguments for why they are unfair are not effective.
The "No" side in the Guardian's article has many flaws, not even counting the fact that his commentary includes a lot of personal attack against one pro-banner, which is never a good way to argue a point.
First, he mentions the concern for bar/restaurant workers and their rights, saying that they could always work somewhere else, should expect smoke as part of the job, and in fact, one choosing to work at a place like this should be "suited" to a smoky environment. This is a pretty ignorant argument. It is problematic to assume that anyone has a choice to work, whether at all or at a certain place. Generally, people working at bars or restaurants are doing so out of necessity, at least to an extent, due to lack of education or skills for something else or as a second job.
Second, his argument that bars and restaurants are more akin to places of hospitality and that customers are more guests and the owner more of a host seems pretty ridiculous to me. While bars are selling and offering a different setting and product than a grocery store, it is still a public, confined space that wants customers and wants those customers to buy a product and enjoy a service. If cigarette smoke is impossible to escape in said public space, it should be effectively prohibited, no matter what kind of relationship proprietor and customer have.
Third, Hitchens points out that a committee decides to implement these bans, effectively forcing all to practice no smoking like them. Why don't non-smokers just go somewhere else? he asks. Again, he is missing many a point. By allowing smoking in public and confined places, are we not then asking non-smokers to participate in inhalation of smoke? Further, asking non-smokers to simply go somewhere else to enjoy people, a drink, maybe even some dart-throwing, is effectively denying them the services and products of a bar. Pubs were not established for the sole reason of smoking inside; rather, they encompass many aspects and smoking seems to be at the bottom of the list. It makes more sense to me to ban smoking inside, allowing all to enjoy drinking and socializing, and ask the smokers to take the smoking somewhere else. He complains that these committees put "private pleasures" under scrutiny; what is this private nature he speaks of? Smoking at a bar seems pretty public to me, especially if others are forced to breathe the smoke without even putting a cigarette to their own mouths.
Lastly, the opponent of bans moves to government regulation and infringement of rights, likening it to drug laws. This "slippery slope" argument that someday they will take smoking from us all together (!!) is misinformed. He dances around the fact that drugs are illegal, thus even prohibiting use in one's own home. If he disagrees with this and wants it changed, that should be an entire other piece. Smoking in a public space is not similar to being able to smoke a joint in your own house. Let's be real; smoking in bars is bad for EVERYONE, not just yourself. Bottom line.
AP and I went to a school with a lot of smokers, but only one [real] bar downtown. When Ohio (or was it just Lorain County??) passed a smoking ban that went into affect January of my senior year, people did not stop going to the Feve. Yes, there is merit in the argument that of course people are not going to stop attending the only bar in town. Yet, if a county-wide ban goes into affect, people are not going to be able to choose the bar across town that does let you smoke there. And no, people are not going to drive to another county just to go to a bar. Seriously. If anything, smoking bans raise your customer base because smokers still want to have a drink and socialize (did people stop eating out when they banned smoking in restaurants??), but non-smokers will be more likely to come out if they don't have to breathe in toxic smoke. And those of us who have the really bad habit of social smoking can rest assured we aren't going to venture outside for that habit that isn't really a habit. So, in essence, it is good all around. Plus, think about it: those jeans you wore to the bar last night, you really can wear for four more days in a row and not smell like an ashtray.