"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (U.S Constitution)." As the first amendment recognized the people have the right to do as they please, and that means the right to smoke. The government is pushing the smoking ban in restaurants and bars to stop people from smoking in public, but is it fair for the people that do smoke? .
The smoking ban has a few pros and cons that make it right and wrong. One pro is better health for the individuals who do not smoke, and a con is for the people that do smoke that would have to give up a lot to please a few. Establishing the smoking ban isn't the right solution to stop people from smoking, the solution is right in front of everyone. Keeping the smoking law the same now is the right answer. Have smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants and bars to allow people to choose where they want to sit without bothering others. If people do not want to be exposed to smoking or as others call it "second-hand smoke" then they need to be seated in a non-smoking area. People believe that second-hand smoke is just as bad, but is it really?.
Second-hand smoke is not as deadly as what everyone thinks it is. Yes, inhaling smoke for 20 minutes could cause your aorta to stiffen (Courier Journal 01-A), but will it actually kill you. I have been exposed to second-hand smoke for all my life, and it has yet to make me sick or kill me. It should be the people to decide whether or not smoking should be band, not the government.
Doug Hawkins, a Louisville Council member stated, "I"m a non-smoker, I don't like cigarette smoke but we as a society do not need to start banning things." This is a great example why we need to look at the big picture and not the little picture about the effects of smoking.