The Carl Junction has had a presentaion made on banning smoking in certain places where the public may encounter second hand smoke and for that matter workers in those establishments as well. I know Joplin has struggled with this and I believe intends to put something on the April ballot concerning this. Unfortunately, putting something like this on a ballot doesn't ensure that the rights of all are protected.
I could not personally, vote for a ban on smoking even though I certainly prefer being in places that have no smoking. The argument when it comes to smoking bans is directed incorrectly. People that smoke have the same rights as those that don't smoke. This shouldn't be an issue. The issue should be about whether the owner/operator of a building, whether it be public or private, has the right to dictate behavior within that building. This I believe is perfectly reasonable. If the owner of a restaurant or bar wishes to allow smoking within their building then this is their right. Where the rights of the non-smoker should come into play here is if the owner of that restaurant or bar wants to cater to both smoking and non-smoking patrons then he/she should be required to provide such adequate air movement and/or filtration so that the right of the non-smoker is not infringed upon. Can this be accomplished, yes. Is it expensive, probably. But it should be left to the owner/operator of the building to decide. The behavior within that building should not be mandated by the government. If that owner/operator wishes to allow smoking but doesn't want to spend the money on the necessary equipment to provide for the non-smoker he/she should simply be required to disclose publicly that this is a building in which smoking is allowed. Patronizing or working within this building is done at one's own risk.
Smoking bans imposed by the government are neither necessary or helpful as it has to discriminate against some class of people to work which is contrary to the priniciples outlined within the Constitution as I see it.