I'm still for the way it was, briefly, in Austin - no smoking in public places, except that the owners of restaurants and bars could apply for, and pay a pretty penny for, a permit to allow smoking in their place of business, and to post a sign on their front door notifying anyone considering patronizing their business that it was a smoking-permitted establishment..  This allowed for places for non-smokers and places for smokers to both be able to go out and enjoy themselves, and it allowed the owners of the private businesses catering to the public to make their own decisions about what would best serve their business.  Seemed like a win/win to me.

However, some nonsmokers just couldn't stand the idea of there being such a compromise - it was their way or else, absolutely everywhere that anyone would want to go in public.  Sad, really. 

For the record, I don't smoke.  Did, once, for about a month, about 38 years ago.  Haven't since; didn't agree with me.  However, the fact that I don't smoke doesn't mean that I find it necessary to control what everyone else does.  After all, if I do that, how am I going to justify objecting if someone decides that they're going to stop me from doing something I enjoy, just because they don't like to do it?  Darn that old Golden Rule, anyway! ;-)

As for the price increase, from what I understand, our prices on tobacco products were pretty low anyway.  And I'd much rather see social engineering done with taxes than with laws outlawing smoking.  At least, with the taxes, you have the choice of continuing to smoke publicly or spending the money on something else - it's still your choice, not Big Brother's. 

Here's what's next in the never-ending battle to save us children from ourselves:

 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/nyregion/06fat.html?ex=1323061200&en=aecf1ac963f8435d&ei=5088partner=rssnyt&emc=rss