Here in Oregon, the public did not get to vote for the smoking ban. The Legislature (usually referred to as "the-Legislature-in-their-Infinite-Wisdom") did it. Prohibiting smoking in bars used to be a local-option thing; some towns did, and some didn't (the one where I live didn't). The-Legislature-in-their-Infinite-Wisdom pre-empted that, and the only argument I've heard for it is they did it because they could. Underscores Mark Twain's old proverb: "No man's property is safe when the Legislature's in session."

Performers, by and large, don't like to sing in smoky rooms because it's hard on the voice. Even though I smoke, I appreciate that--i can feel it, too. On the other hand, a smoking ban cuts into a lot of venues' business, and they became unable to afford live entertainment because they no longer have the income. (Yes, that is a convenient excuse if somebody wants to take advantage of it--but the bars in my hometown, after the smoking ban, had a *visible* drop in traffic. It was obvious.) And that's why, back in the good old days, most performers didn't complain too loudly about smoky bars--you went where the traffic was, and that was it.

Restaurants here have been non-smoking for years, not because of any legislation but because the owners did it; there were a few holdouts, but not many. I never really minded that myself. But *bars*? When was the last time somebody went to a bar for their health?

www.soundclick.com/joewrabek
www.soundclick.com/deathgrass
www.soundclick.com/wrabeksworksinprogress
The Writer's Blog: http://nakedspacehamsters.blogspot.com