Ok, a couple of different recurring themes in this thread I want to address:
First, the idea that all smokers are stupid, irrational, out-of-control, or whatever epithets are being heaped upon us today. I will not try to convince you to abandon your prejudices and hatreds. I understand that some people need to look down on others in order to feel superior themselves. It's happened to many minorities in the past, and there will always be people like you (it's really funny when you consider that most of you consider yourselves enlightened progressives - you know who you are so embrace your hypocrisy!)
But let's grant the above supposition. Many of you seem to feel that because smokers are stupid that means they do not have rights that should be protected. I would argue that the main function of government is to protect the rights of the stupid, the lazy, and the irrational. One of you enlightened folks went so far as to suggest that because smokers only represent 30% of the population their rights can safely be ignored. My oh My! - imagine the ramifications of that concept. Jim Crow anyone?
Fantasea has gone to great pains once more to prove with many, many, many fascinating links something that most people already realize. Cigarettes are addictive. But how, upon acknowledging that someone is controlled by a substance and no longer in possesion of their right faculties, can you then punish this person for what you have just told me is out of their control? And are there any other things that have been shown to be addictive, let's see...
Chocolate
Television
Sex
Gambling
Shopping
Celebrity
Work
and last but not least,
The Internet
Then there is the idea that you are somehow guaranteed a workplace free of discomfort and hazards. I would suggest that you are in no way protected from discomfort in your workplace. I am sure that many can cite rulings in which courts have found against employers in cases of either physical or mental discomfort. My only response is that I disagree with those rulings. Simply because a court has made a decision surely does not make that a Constitutional right. We as Americans are free to disagree even with the decisions of the Supreme Court (although it may well do us no good). You are (and should be) protected against unreasonable hazards in your workplace. As others have already pointed out, nearly every job involves an exposure to a hazard of some form or another. I was a land surveyor for several years, and did a fair amount of highway layout. Part of my job involved standing in the center line of a 55 MPH highway with traffic wizzing past inches from me on either side and constantly breathing exhaust gas. If I felt these hazards to be unreasonable or unacceptable one of my options did not include demanding that my employer change the way he did business in order to quit exposing me to this risk. If cigarette smoke is a hazard that you particularly fear, make sure you ask about smoking policies when applying for a job. IF that job will expose you to an unacceptable level of smoke - seek employment elsewhere. And don't give me this crap about the poor single mother working at Waffle House. She knew what the air in WH was like when she took the job just like I knew that cars go really fast on the highway when I took my job. We all have our crosses to bear.
If a community, city, state, or nation holds a public vote and bans cigarettes in public places - then that's the way it is. I would disagree, and I would vote against it; but if it passes I would accept it as the law of the land. I understand that is exactly what has happened in many places. If not being able to smoke in those states, etc... bothers me I simply won't go there. However, here in Atlanta and in many other places these bans have been enacted without vote, because it was widely know that the vote would fail. That is not Democracy, that is a Nanny State.
Finally, I feel the need to restate this in very simple terms. I buy a piece of land from a private citizen. I have a fee simple deed to this land with no encumbrances. This is the most sacred right of any human being, the right to control land. In many states in some circumstances I can actually kill anyone who enters this land without permission. However, I choose to allow people onto my land. I choose to allow them to do certain things on my land, for which I may or may not charge a fee. Can someone tell me what right the freaking government has to tell me what legal activities I can or cannot allow these private citizens on my private land to do!!!!