Where are you people coming up with this "It is my right to smoke" notion? I looked into it, and the only argument that anyone could conjure up is that the 14th Amendment (or Article 4, though they are the same thing) guarantees that right. The 14th only guarantees "privileges or immunities". Never have I seen that interpreted to mean smoking. For the most part, it seems to mean that all citizens are promised the rights given in the first 8 amendments, which really have nothing to do with smoking. I'll give you this much: you should be allowed to smoke in your own private homes. There is no "right" to smoke in public. I can't for the life of me see why so many people would be so insistent on filling themselves with toxic fumes.

OK, so I was mistaken on the current market price of a pack of cigarettes. Youre right. I shouldve looked into that a little more closely. With regards to the girl you mentioned, it is of course sad that that happened. But you seem content to blame the ban for her death. At the risk of sounding overly sarcastic, I think it is safe to say that the rapist killed her, and if you want to get deeper into it, her own decisions. Nobody forced her to become a smoker. Nobody forced her to that bar. Nobody forced her to smoke that cigarette.
Maybe I do want smoking to be illegal. Ask yourself this: What good has smoking a cigarette ever brought? If you Google benefits of smoking the first one is a clearly pro-smoking website. The only logical long-term beneficial aspect of smoking is that it might help prevent Parkinsons disease. On Yale Medical Groups website, there is a posting about the hazards of smoking (http://ymghealthinfo.org/content.asp?pageid=p07345). The risks include lung disease, oral cancer, heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, stroke, etc. Personally, Ill take my chances with Parkinsons. So why are you driven to smoke?
Back to square one. There are certain counties in California that have a smoking ban that is effective on ALL rental properties (like apartments, duplexes, etc.). This is for the protection of the 80% of us that DONT SMOKE. I think it is only fair to cite a few instances of what such a ban could have prevented. Go to http://www.firesafecigarettes.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=126&itemID=1861&URL=In%20the%20news/From%20the%20wires/News%20accounts%20from%202006. Anything that mentions a rental property would not have happened if smoking was banned from such property. So lets see: 10 deaths in apartment fires, several injuries and hundreds of people displaced, and at least $200,000 in damages (not counting the one that caused a full million). All of this could have likely been prevented with the ban on rental properties (maybe that ban should be extended to nursing homes, after having read that article).
Let me ask you one more question. You seem like the type of person who would argue that smoking bans are unconstitutional. Why do you feel that way?

I agree with you. If a person wants to spend their money on cigarettes, let them. Some people send their money on expensive cars, designer purses, or alcohol, and do we criticize them? How could someone say they want smoking to be completely illegal? Thats like saying everything should be illegal. A person should have the right to do what they want, and where they want. I do not think there should be such thing as a smoking ban. Restaurants, bowling allies, bars, and clubs should be able to decided weather they want to be smoking or non-smoking. I know a lot of businesses have lost a lot of profit due to the smoking ban. This is America, and we should be able to decide where we want to smoke.

Im from Ohio and I love our smoking ban. I enjoy not coughing in restaurants, and breathing in foul smelling smoke. Smokers are in the minority, and we should not have to compromise our health for their addiction. If people choose to smoke, they can smoke outside or in their own homes. The only problem with the smoking ban is that it encourages people to smoke right outside the doorways even though they are not supposed to. This means that you have to go through a cloud of smoke when entering or leaving a building. I also love the ban because children are not exposed to smoke as much. Not allowing smoking inside public buildings sends a message to kids that smoking is bad, so hopefully the number of people smoking will drop.

I'm not sure where you got your facts david, hertledj@email.uc.edu, but they seem to be way off. In fact, if a person smokes a pack a day, they are not spending $3000. Not even around that number. I'll show you the math- 1 pack being $4.00 x 365 = $1460. Half what you say. Now, if a smoker buys cartons that's 36.5 cartons. The average carton is about $35. That math would be $35 x 36.5 = $1277.50. Even if you are buying packs at $5, that only equals $1825. In addition, where are you getting your info for Ireland? And why don't you go ahead a post a link to where you are getting these numbers! 2000 lives are saved due to smoking bans, whose lives? I know of one life that was taken due to a smoking ban. A girl died because she was forced outside of a bar due to a smoking ban. She was raped and murdered at 21. A smoking ban would not have saved the people in the Carolina house fire?, since the bans are for smoking in public buildings. You want smoking to be illegal completely! And you will lie to do it, won't you! You know, I could also throw out some random, made up, numbers to prove my point, but I don't believe in faking data. Show us the proof!

With regards to the individual from Green Bay's whining about the increase in health insurance, that is your own fault. Think about it. If people's insurance prices can be raised because of family histories and other health factors that are out of their control, it is only fair to raise the prices on account of factors that are in the control of the individual. Furthermore, being a smoker, you must realize how much money you spend on cigarettes a year. A person who smokes a pack a day will spend around $3000 a year. Not really chump change.
With regards to the ban, it may seem unconstitutional, but you have to realize that bans are enacted to protect citizens. The US Surgeon General announced that any exposure to second hand smoke is harmful. Surely you agree that a hospital's function is to save lives, not shorten them. By way of these two points, smoking should not be allowed anywhere near a hospital.
Furthermore, smoking bans have been popping up all over Europe lately. One of interest is the ban in Ireland. Ireland is known for smoky pubs, and I think we can all agree on that. Ireland enacted a nationwide ban on smoking, and you know what? The response to the ban has been overwhelmingly positive, even from the pubs. The ban levels the playing field. Profits are up, because now more people can go to any pub, and smokers still have to eat and drink too you know.
Just the other day, a house fire in Carolina killed several people. You know what started that fire? A cigarette. One persons habit cost others their lives. Fires started by cigarettes claim thousands of lives a year (2,193 in 1999), and for you more materialistic, hundreds of millions in property damage as well ($559.1 million in 1999). So if you think smoking is still constitutional, go right ahead. I for one feel that any law that saves 2,000 lives and $500,000,000 a year should have been in place years ago.