A smoker can get the nicotine from a realistic-looking cig devise.
It lights on inhale, and expels a cloud of water vapor on exhale.
With no tobacco and nothing ignited, smoking laws do not apply.

A thinking non-smoker will appreciate that there is no secondhand smoke and no smell. No ash or butt to litter the environment or chance of fire.

Torch electronic cigarettes are respectful to the non-smoker. The smoker can replicate the physical and psychological desires and still get nicotine.

Heathier, safer and smarter.

A smoker can get the nicotine from a realistic-looking cig devise.
It lights on inhale, and expels a cloud of water vapor on exhale.
With no tobacco and nothing ignited, smoking laws do not apply.

A thinking non-smoker will appreciate that there is no secondhand smoke and no smell. No ash or butt to litter the environment or chance of fire.

Torch electronic cigarettes are respectful to the non-smoker. The smoker can replicate the physical and psychological desires and still get nicotine.

Heathier, safer and smarter.

At the end of the day, you are the owner of your own body and no other person or group has a higher claim to it than you do.

No. Employers cannot harm their employees, period, even if the employees
expressly or implicitly agree to the harm. Taken to the extreme, this would
lead us back to the scenario depcited by Upton Sinclair in his book “The
Jungle”: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5727/

“What about those who desire a working environment where they can smoke and
are now potentially having that choice taken away from them?”

Good question. I agree with your point if and only if the employee works by
themselves and does not inflict others and is not inflicted by others -
example – a truck driver. However, if the bar owner permits patrons or
other employees to smoke, that second-hand smoke would incrementally harm
the employee. An employer cannot harm an employee, so, the answer is, that
smoking is a choice, ir harms the smoker and all who breathe that air, so
no, the potential employee cannot voluntarily work in such an environment.

We read The Jungle back in high school, so that's the central tenet I'm
drawing from – an employer cannot maintain a harmful working environment.

I think the schism between my view and the pro-smoking view is that I
believe people do not have the right to subject themselves to harm. You
can't, for example, pay someone to have yourself killed if you are suffering
from terminal cancer.

Don't ask me about boxing !

2) Without fail, the laws that justify smoking bans are based on bogus science…science that absurdly believes the cigarette industry marketing propaganda about the products being just tobacco, or tobacco at all in some cases. Many US Patents exist for “tobacco substitute material” (fake tobacco) designed to “simulate” tobacco taste, appearance, scent and texture—even though ALL of the cigarette stuffing may be made from…Peanut Shells…or “Popped Corn”. Homework: Search up Patent Numbers 3,978,866 and 3,964,395 (for starters). If a prosecutor finds dreaded and illegal Tobacco Smoke coming from that…well, we have another abuse of public office problem on our hands.

The zealous Anti Tobacco forces in govt can almost be guaranteed to have economic links TO the cigarette industry…not cig makers, of course, but the additives and adulterants suppliers (the pesticides and chlorine etc etc, and those insurers and investors). They are
perpetrating a mass Blame The Victims, and blame the conveniently “sinful” Public-Domain-Natural Plant, tobacco, charade to evade astronomical liabilities and criminal penalties.

See more at a site called “Fauxbacco” (a collection of relevant resource materials, etc.) and search up “Bill Drake Smoke and Illusion” for much more.

– If the smoke in question is not analyzed to see if it indeed is smoke from tobacco, we do not know what we are talking about, or legislating against.
– If the cigarettes in question are not fully described for content and analyzed for perhaps deadly non-tobacco adulterants, again, we do not know what we are talking or legislating about.
– If judges and jurors in “smoking” cases are not required to recuse themselves if they have economic links to the cigarette industry—especially the Hidden Parts (tobacco pesticides, chlorine, paper/pulp, ag biz that supplies additives, and the insurers-investors) we have a violation of Due Process of law.
– If judges and jurors have religious bias against “sinful” tobacco, same thing.
– If a juror had some relative or friend supposedly killed by “smoking” or “tobacco”, that's as much a bias as having a person with relatives killed by cops sitting in a trial about a police shooting.

NB: Anti smoking laws BENEFIT the cigarette industry, a prime supposed target of such laws. Big Cig is off the hook for adulterating their products with more deadly industrial things than can be found in any other product…or even in most industrial incinerators. “Tobacco”? Not by miles.

PS: The Medicis killed their enemies with wine spiked with arsenic. We all know the “dangers of drinking”…but it's Quite Another Thing when it's about drinking POISONED wine. We do not ban wine or drinking. Even the Florentines didn't do that. We act on those who poisoned it…unless, of course, they are like the Medicis and are “too big to fail”. Big Cig, too big to fail?

1. “Loss of freedom:” No, this does not take a “right” away from anyone. No where does it define smoking as as a right in the U.S. Constitution. I do believe people are smart, as this measure is supported by about 80%.

2. I don't know of any nursing or any medical facility that currently allows smoking. Regardless I would never support a measure that stops anyone from smoking outdoors.

3. VFW/Military fighting for freedom: Interesting point each time it's raised to me and one of the reasons I changed my mind. The current national VFW president supports and is moving those clubs smoke-free. Military went and led the national movement to go smoke-free in 1994. In 2002 they extended to all military clubs, bars and bowling alleys. This is and has been supported by are U.S. Military.

4. Abdul's economic numbers are wrong. I say that in a very respectful way. He knows that but chooses to cling onto them as proof. No one indicator can equal one factor for loss. Studies have shown an increase in sales when smoke-free.

So the fight goes on. About the nursing homes Ben might be right but I wonder who is going to take that person in the wheel chair 60 feet from the door to smoke?

Gas masks and neoprene suits for everyone!

When a person asks for employment of a property owner and accepts an offer, do they not agree to the terms of that employment including what is likely an acknowledgement they are working in an environment were smoking is allowed? What about those who desire a working environment where they can smoke and are now potentially having that choice taken away from them?