The bottom line is your view of the function of the state. One view is that the power of the state should be used to stop people from doing what others don't like for them to do. This can be applied to smoking, alcohol, drugs, pollution, gay marriages, homosexuality, non-marital sex, driving large vehicles, prostitution, living without health insurance, burning the flag, speaking politically incorrectly, guns, certain kinds of speech, terrorism, etc. While generally the issues don't fall on both sides of the left/right divide, the behavior certainly does. And both sides can point out why what they don't like really is bad and should be banned.

Personally, I am not so much of a libertarian that I never want to see the government be used to ban anything. On the other hand, my tendency is to believe that informing people honestly about the benefits/harm of things and then letting them suffer the consequences is a reasonable way to handle most things that 'should be banned'. When the consequences tend to fall on those other than the one doing the act (e.g. drunk driving), I have a lot more sympathy with the idea of banning it or increasing the penalty to deter it if you do it (banning alcohol in theory removes the right/ability to get falling down drunk and to drive while drunk, the death penalty for being caught driving while drunk doesn't stop your right/ability to get falling down drunk, but would probably severely reduce drunk driving recidivism).

In the end, I support the idea of the voters (not necessarily just the voter's representatives) to make the decisions. I would love to see the situation where the authority to ban things can only be granted based on referendum and have a built in sunset provision requiring that after 5 or 10 years another vote be held to continue the ban. Early repeal would also be possible. Thus, we allow for rational debate on what should and shouldn't be allowed, we don't get the non-direct voting issue where you have to choose to accept the 20% you disagree with on the representatives voting record to get the 80% you agree with.

Well that is all well and good, but then how do you explain the ban on heroin, cocaine, and other drugs? Seems to me they fit more with alcohol and cause far, far fewer deaths. At least my (sarcastic) position is consistent. Yours isn't unless you favor decriminalizing drugs.

We should ban campfires. Do you have any idea how many kids will sit around an open fire this summer, smoke burning their eyes, following them as they move. Tobacco is relatively controlled as to content but what is is that wood collected from the ground? Has it been assessed for noxious substances?

Think of the delicate pink lungs being assaulted as the innocent children blissfully toast marshmallows in the flames, make S'mores, and stir the embers. What are a few happy memories of Camp against the damage done by being exposed to such a horrific environment. Better to show them a video of a fire while eating a Hershey's S'mores candy bar in the safety of a hypo-allergenic home.

We in Minneapolis/St. Paul went smokefree about a year ago. Our hospitality industry business is up, our civil liberties are intact and our indoor air is clearer. Come and see us sometime!

Punch myself? - legal
Punch another in a boxing ring? - legal
Punch a stranger walking down the street? - illegal

I have no doubt that there are restaurants and bars that would do quite well if they were permitted to allow smoking on their premises. And yes, non-smokers could avoid them.

I'd love to see "smoking only" restaurants, bar, even airlines. They would capture a unique market and profit by it, whether or not I chose to be a customer.

So the non-smoking regulators have restricted the choice of both smokers and business-owners in order to enforce a moral stance with debatable scientific support. That is not the proper role of government, in my book.

I'm sure you would be outraged if, for example, somebody who consumed alcohol in a restaurant forcibly gave small portions of that alcohol to everybody else in the restaurant. That is, essential, what happens when tobacco smoke is confined in a restaurant. I don't want to make it illegal for people to smoke tobacco, I just want it to be illegal for other people to make ME smoke tobacco.

Now, I'm sure somebody (though maybe not somebody here) will start talking about nobody forcing me to go to a restaurant, and market forces compelling restaurants to find an equitable solution, and on paper that may sound all fine and good. However, I'm sure the restaurant owners don't want to have to decide which half of the population to alienate.

Now again, somebody (still, maybe not somebody here) would counter that smoking bans are just the Government making that same decision for the restaurant owners, but again there is a caveat. Consider this, if Applebees bans smoking, and Friday's does not, the Applebees will lose most or all of their smoking customers to Fridays. However, since a government ban effects them both, they are both equal in the eyes of the smoking customers, and so it is not a competitive issue to the restaurants.

In the end, the only losers are the smokers. And I, for one, find it hard to feel too bad for making them postpone their carcinogenic fix.

I like to drink, drinking is my pleasure. Do you mind if I stand up on that chair and urinate all over your hair and clothes?

By golly, you're right! We need to ban everything that may potentially lead to urination. Ban dihydrogen monoxide!!!

And people claim there's no such thing as a slippery slope.