Right people have the right to be free from smoke and smokers have the right to smoke. Each group need to respect the right of the other, the problem in this case is neither do. The anti-smokers want smoking eliminated all together and to deny smokers their pleasures while the smokers feel they should be able to foist the by-product of their pleasure on others.

The one that I differ with the anti-smokers on is bars. These are institutions with the explicit purpose of pleasure. I think owner of the establishment should be allowed to decide if his establishment is designated smoking or non. The anti-smokers don't like this because the vote would be a resounding we are a smoking establishment. Because for a good deal of the population, they don't care, they would go to a smoking bar. The non-smokers activist hate this because no one want's to hang out at their non-smoking bar. So they ruin it for the rest. In my state Bars where the last public establishments to fall and they fought hard to resist it because patrons had already voted with their feet and smoking bars where more popular than non.

Can you read? Or do you see one piece of a larger argument and go completely blind?

As I said I am a _non-smoker_. I have been for my entire life. Again as I already said I do not care that people smoke around me and I find it a huge inconvenience on myself that I have to go out of my way to be with my friends when the laws are getting restrictive to the point that you cannot smoke anywhere legally in downtown areas except in the middle of a boulevard.

Yet I can't go downtown on a Saturday night without running into drunks and druggies who get into fights and destroy property. I've seen chairs thrown into oncoming traffic by people refused alcohol, I don't see this from any smokers anywhere?

Please cut the fucking naivety here. Alcohol is more destructive to the users health and to our societal health than tobacco, marijuana or LSD, but we're happy with the former being legal while the latter society wants illegal.