I agree with you 100% Leauki.  In fact you make the argument much better than I ever could.

We live in a society, by definition that means we can't do whatever we want when we want.  Our rights stop when they violate the rights of others.  Being a business owner doesn't give one human being the right to expose others unnecessarily to harmful substances. 

As far as parents exposing children unnecessarily.  IMO, that is abuse. 

There is no humane reason or excuse to expose anyone to second hand smoke.

There are obviously financial ones though.

Then what is wrong with my example of having the bar owner post a warning outside?  That way noone is exposed to any unknown risk and the bar owner reserves his right to allow smokers as he sees fit.

But in the end the gun can only harm if shot and people shooting guns regardless if by accident know that harn can come from it especially when they have control of the direction where the bullet goes. Smoke, on the other hand can not be controlled so even if people were restricted to smoke within their own property lines, what is to stop the smoke from reaching the people outside that property line? Sure, bullets can also leave a property line, but it can only happen if being pointed in a specific direction whether by accident or on prupose, smoke on the other hand can not be controlled.

If we gonna get technical here then we should ban cars, trucks, factories, BBQ's, flares, etc. I mean where will this stop? Every time someone believes the Govt should intervene in the populations "safety" we continue to take pieces off the concept of freedom. Ban smoking, ban alcohol, ban all modes of transportation that use fossil fuels, how much more freedom are we gonna give up just to avoid things we have the power ourselves to avoid? Hardhat laws? Sure, if you work in a dangerous location, you need that money you know.  think we are going too far or not far enough. We either ban it all together or let people chose. If we truly believe smoking is bad than ban it for good. Not restrict it.

What should be done about that?

vasectomy.

PS. allow smoking though. It is a GREAT source of tax revenue. if some idiots want to destroy themselves, let them.

As silly as this may sound.... what about flatulence?  Should government control that?

There are some flatulence that is toxic!

The bar owner knows second hand smoke is a carcinogen and harmful.

He exposes his employees to it not because he believes it is good for them, because he knows it is not.  He exposes them to it, knowing full well it is damaging their bodies, possibly their very lives, for one single reason:  profit.

This is America.  I get that.  People should have the right to kill themselves anyway they want too and get paid while doing it.

But, because we live in a social structure with "norms", we actually don't have unlimited rights.

I'd argue a business owner is being unethical, at the very least, to knowingly allow his employees to be harmed on his property for profit.  Even if they consent.  For example, its not illegal to cut yourself.  So, why not have a business where people pay to see this occur?  Line girls up on a stage and give them razor blades, let them bleed for their pay?  So long as they live, do it themselves, no law is broken, no rights infringed.

I can't imagine living in a society where this would be "ok" a "choice."

Generally the cutting situation I used is not tolerated in our society.  It goes against social norms.  Smoking, while once wildly celebrated, is shifting into what is no longer socially acceptable.  We are in the transition period.  Unless something really drastic happens, the heyday of smoking is gone, eventually left to the fringe.

Personally I like the way Ohio did it.  The issue was brought up by voters, and citizens decided.  The gov didn't step in until asked too.

Child abuse is child abuse.  So I'm not sure I understand your question. 

There are laws in place in each state for people abusing children.  If you're asking me about those, that is another topic entirely.

Charles there are safety regulations in place for each of those things.  When used appropriately they are generally not harmful.  Cigarettes, by their very nature, are damaging when used as intended.  And not just to the person choosing to use them.

Are you serious?  People do all sorts of freaky things in the name of entertainment all of the time and they do it for what?  That's right, profit!

Noone is forced to work at a bar!  You couldn't pay me enough to be a window washer.  People choose to do that for money.  You couldn't pay me enough to go out on a lobster boat.  People do that for money.

There's no law against smoking around your children.  If you think it's child abuse, should there be a law against it?

Not in cities/states where the majority has decided a particular flavor of freaky is unacceptable.  Not legally.

Those things are currently not harmful to other people by their very nature, are they?  More to the point, those things are not currently under public scrutiny.

(And you wouldn't wash windows to feed your family if it was the only job you could find?  Really?)

At one time in this country, prostitution and gambling were easy to find, and not illegal. 

Why did that change?  Did the big bad government come in and put those brothel owners out of business? 

Yes, if you want to look at it that way.  They did.

But what led to them closing?  The citizens, the voters, decided those things were no longer socially acceptable.  It no longer fit the societal norms of the majority.  The citizens demanded government act on their behalf and get rid of such establishments. 

My point is, smoking is going down the same road.  Is it harmful?  Yes, but even that takes second seat to the changing social norms of the country.

The gov, under public pressure, is responding to smoking much the same way it has done to other once socially acceptable practices, which have for whatever reason, fallen out of that acceptable zone.

Personally I believe child endangerment laws cover it.  Though they are rarely enforced, even when the smoking involves illegal substances. 

no there isn't, nor is it a choice, nor is it something that a person has willing control over. Nobody can choose to fart toxic gas... So the analogy is as stupid as it sounds.