Smoking Bans

Links to Organizations Fighting Smoking Bans

Lookup your Federal and State Elected Officials contact information.

Why should free people be opposed to smoking bans?

Simply because when government mandates consumer choices, the economy always suffers. For instance, it is largely the failed economy of the former Soviet Union, which forced consumer choice, which caused it's downfall. Unfortunately, when government imposes consumer choice on the hospitality industry in a capitalistic society, it is not government which suffers the consequences, instead, it is the owners and the workers in those establishments. For more information on how smoking bans harm the hospitality industry please visit, which evaluates the statewide economic impact of smoking bans on the bar and restaurant industry and contains links to many other articles which found the same effects.

Another reason to oppose smoking bans, is simply put, that they have all the same legal defects as eminent domain. Both are the government's taking of private property for alleged public good, without fair compensation to the owner. The owners are not compensated fairly because governments rarely compensate owners for the anticipated economic and personal losses.

Further, when smoking bans are imposed, they interfere with the rights of owners and workers to associate with smokers. The plain truth is, that even among those smokers who still patronize establishments after bans take effect, most do not patronize as frequently, or for the same length of time as before. In order to maintain a successful business, owners must be able to associate freely with customers and bans take away from that.

Lastly, many owners, patrons and workers simply do not believe secondhand smoke is hazardous. Unlike true health regulations, where governments protect owners, patrons, and workers from hidden and immediate health risks such as infectious disease and food poisoning, smoking bans do not. There is some scientific evidence that long term exposure can cause adverse health effects in nonsmokers. However there are also a number of distinguished epidemiologists who believe it does not. contains links to many studies and public statements by leading epidemiologists which conclude that thers is no risk from secondhand smoke. Banning smoking interferes with the choice of owners, patrons and workers to believe, or disbelieve that secondhand smoke is harmful and live their lives accordingly. There is no government anywhere in the USA which interferes with anyone over 18-years-old from choosing to smoke; there should be no government anywhere which interferes with anyone's choice to be exposed to secondhand smoke.