Do you really think not being able to smoke in public will affect the demand for cigarettes?  This is something people do even though they know it can cause them to die horribly.  It's expensive but the increase in cost of cigs doesn't decrease how much people smoke.  They just use more of the money that should be going elsewhere (like nutritious food for their kids).

People who are on oxygen and are fully aware they could blow themselves and everyone they love up by smoking still smoke.  There is a saying, even if a smoker quit 30 yrs ago, if they found out the world was going to end tomorrow, the first thing they want is a cigarette.  That's called strong addiction.

I know people that have more willpower than I have ever seen who can't seem to kick it.  Do you really think that telling them they have to smoke outside is going to make them stop?  Young kids start smoking all the time even though they are fully aware of the risks.  If the government really cared about the health issue, and the majority of Americans really wanted it stopped, we would make it illegal.

Yes, it would be illogical to think it wouldn't. People do manage to quit smoking - this would provide one more reason for them to try. Meanwhile, people also choose whether to take up smoking - this would provide one more reason not to. Furthermore you're more likely to smoke if you've grown up in a 'smokey' environment - this reduces the number of such environments which would probably have some impact. Don't take my word for it though - just look at surveys, polls, interviews etc. done in countries considering such a ban - you've had many smokers in favour of the ban in part because they think it may help them to quit.

Similarly if the price of cigarettes doubled, I wouldn't expect the amount people spent on cigarettes to double.

If you want to argue that it's ridiculous for just 1 single person more out of millions to not smoke as much instead of smoking more due to the ban on smoking in public though, go ahead.

Edit: And if you still are sceptical, here are a few quick links courtesy of google for a country that introduced a smoking ban in public places fairly recently:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/consumer_goods/article2769617.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7023841.stm

I never said making it illegal would stop people.  Pot is illegal, people still smoke it.  All sorts of drugs are illegal, people still use them.  I'm just pointing out that the government needs to be consistent.  Either make it illegal or stay the hell out of the privately owned businesses.

I would be upset at all if they made smoking illegal.  It is bad for all involved other than those making money off from it.  I just think it is a horrible idea to give the government power to go in and tell privately owned businesses they can't allow legal activities.

I still think the example of loud music is a good one.  It damages your hearing.  It's legal.  Should the gov be able to ban it for our own good?  What's the difference?

Actually it is illigal to play music above certain volumes near residental areas. The police will come, and fine you. And if it is after 9pm then much lighter noise will get them on your case (then it is public disturbance).

My answers:

No.

Yes.

Yes. (I think it complicates matters if we try to take into account the health care issues.)

I don't see how we can let people die otherwise.

I don't even know how we could realistically force people to stop smoking when in government-paid treatment for cancer.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

That doesn't make sense.

Government either wants fewer people to smoke XOR make more money from people smoking.

A campaign to persuade people not to smoke is certainly not a part of a grand plan to make more money from smokers.

I think that some people just think until they arrive at the first scenario where government is the bad guy and then they call that the answer and feel proud that they looked through the matter while others are still ignorant.

If we let the "market" set the rules for harmful actions you will quickly notice that people will murder each other because the market fails to come up with an incentive for violent people not to murder.

I am sure that smoking in public is the same as murder in most people's minds. Just like comparing smoking around children to shooting them or running them over with your car.  Man, talk about comparing apples to oranges.

America USED to be a democracy.  However, we seem to be taking the lead from Socialist nations.  Creating more bans and social regulations just pushes us further into socialism.  Where does it end?  EVERY regulation of this type is harmful in a free economy.  The more you regulate business in any way, the more harm is done. 

 "As opposed to the Canadians, the Iirish, and the Germans?"  Sorry, I'm new to this and don't know how to do the quotes.

Actually, what I meant was that as Canadians, Irish, Germans, Americans, etc, we all worry about the behavior of our OWN governments.  Furthermore, if the US government continues with it's policies that intrude more and more into the private lives of it's citizens, we Americans are stuck with the consequences, not the Canadians, Irish, Germans, etc.

"If we let the "market" set the rules for harmful actions you will quickly notice that people will murder each other because the market fails to come up with an incentive for violent people not to murder."

Are we on the same subject?  I was talking about smoking in private business establishments, a behavior that may be offensive to many (including myself) but is not illegal.  The market will indeed reward the business owner who creates an environment that pleases the majority of his customers.  So if most of us want a smoke free atmosphere we'll flock to the bar that provides this.  As far as the market and murder go, I don't know what to say.  Murder is against the law and here we depend on our government for protection but until smoking is declared illegal I, for one, prefer to protect myself.

I'm aware of this.  So why isn't it illegal in bars?

I fully agree with your sentiment, Karma, but the US has never been a democracy.  Rather a representative republic which, at one time, anyway, actually represented us.  Our government now exists to sustain and enlarge itself rather than represent us, I'm afraid.  Why we keep electing such goons is beyond me.

A representative republic is a type of democracy. In fact all democracies (except for a few cantons in Switzerland I suppose, which are direct democracies) are representative. (The third type is the council democracy.)

I agree but if you enter a private establishment, you consent to be exposed to any LEGAL activity within.

Our government is already so bloated and inefficient.  Who is going to enforce the ban?  Who is going to be in charge of cigarette regulation?

We have so many problems and expenses in our government already!  We already agree that smoking in PUBLIC and GOVERNMENT locations is wrong and I haven't heard anyone have a problem with that.  We are talking about the rights of privately owned establishments.  That is my big issue here.