So please read through this before you flame me, it's a hot topic I know, but I don't want anyone to take it out of context. I don't necessarily agree it's the rights of the smokers that they are INTENDING to inhibit, I think they are trying to create rights for non-smokers but they are going at it the wrong way.... So as a non-smoker I feel like I have the right to not smell smoke or have to breath it.... but the issue here is, what right do I have to tell an establishment they can't let people smoke? I don't... I can choose to go to establishments that don't allow smoking (and I have). I think where everyone is getting upset, is that frequently we confuse the rights of one with the penalty on the other... AND people are trying to protect us from ourselves (maybe...) seatbelt laws, helmet laws, speed limits Now in terms of smoking, why do I think it passed? Couple reasons, I'm sure I'll get flamed for some of them but here is the reason: 1. You make it easy for establishments to have someone to blame if they wanted to prohibit or restrict it. 2. The majority of voters don't smoke (that's the true reason it passed). This could come to propensity or just sheer numbers, I'm not saying >50% of people don't smoke, just saying >50% of the voters don't smoke Honestly, if we're standing in a parking lot and you light a smoke (ask Ken) I don't care.... I really don't... if the smoke bothers me I'll take a step back or move out of the wind... If we're in a bar and you smoke inside and I can't smell/see, again... what do I care? And even if I can... if I have somewhere I can go where I won't I'll do that.... If you ask to smoke in my car or house, I'll ask you not to. Hopefully I don't get flamed.... but I think we can likely agree both sides of the fence have rights.... how we go about getting everyone their rights is where there is an issue. </rant>