Yeah, I know. I was just taking a cheap shot

But is this something that should be legislated by state or federal government? Town or City Govt, I can understand. I understand that a small percentage of non-smokers cannot bear to be in a smoking establishment. As I understand that a large percentage of non-smokers can't bear to be in a smoky environment. (that applies to smokers too). And I can understand that non-smokers currently don't have much choice in avoiding smoking establishments (outside California).

But, I can't bear to be in a non-smoking pub for any length of time There's just something relaxing about a pint and a cigarette together that a non-smoker couldn't understand. State- or federal-wide bans would remove my choice. I could deal with and accept non-smoking towns, as I can deal with the concept of non-drinking towns. I think that would be a reasonable compromise. If you have a problem with me smoking in a pub 5 miles away then you have larger issues than second-hand smoke.

As regards to the health issues; no legal, religous or moral code that I know of states that anyone has the absolute right to prolong their life by removing other peoples' liberties. You may or may not like this, but that's the way it is.

Look on the bright side - you're worrying about the possible long-term effects of repeated inhalation of second-hand toxins. Is that all? Over 2/3 of the World's nations are locked in armed conflict. Over 1/2 the World's population live in poverty. Nearly 1/6 of the World's population can't read or sign their names.

Keep it in perspective and enjoy life.