hyunelan2, I think he's talking about the time all the women stopped having babies and.... oh wait... that was a movie... Oh well, it's still a valid basis for an argument, right?
In case you didn't notice it up above, I am a small-government conservative. I don't want the government telling me what to do, and how to do it. I want the government to provide a reasonable level of protection, and a decent amount of infrastructure and then keep it's greedy mitts off what I make (as much as that's possible).
I certainly don't deny your (generic you...) freedom to smoke. It would be crazy for me (average citizen) to take away your right to smoke anywhere but on my property. If I were to walk up to you, forcibly remove your cigarette, and physically prevent you from lighting another, that would be a crime.
So... let's evaluate our priorities here... We feel that we are so entitled to a cigarette, that it doesn't matter in the slightest what effect it has on those around us.
Second hand smoke has a direct, verifiable, _immediate_ effect on those who are exposed to it (the symptoms aren't immediate, but the damage is).
So... to sum up... The right you are defending isn't the right to smoke, it's the right to expose your children to an atmosphere which _will_ (not "might") be hazardous to their health. Sound about right?
Like I said... arrogant self entitlement...
EDIT: GIS Guy, you have a "right" to buy OTC medications?