I write this article as a lifelong non-smoker. I think smoking is a revolting personal choice that only accelerates the journey to your grave. It's unattractive, disgusting and easily one of the worst decisions one can make for their health.

But I am staunch supporter of smoker's rights. Yes, you read that correctly, I support smokers.

Do I support their habit itself? Absolutely not. Do I support government staying out of my daily life and making decisions for me? You bet I do.

A smoking ban is yet another stride down the slippery slope of government over-regulation in our daily lives.

A vast majority of Americans support a smoking ban in some form whether it's the workplace, restaurants, bars, public buildings, etc. Who wouldn't like the idea of coming home from a restaurant, or especially a bar, and not have to your clothes smell like smoke? As someone who frequents Milwaukee bars and restaurants, I can tell you that this is a goal for all of us non-smoking patrons.

While no one is arguing the merits of reducing smoking or the effects of second-hand smoke, the fact is that smoking cigarettes is a legal activity that is heavily taxed by our state and federal governments. This is definitely "feel good" legislation that even smokers have a hard time standing on their soap box to debate. Most smokers I know are ashamed of their habit and would do anything to stop.

The government has every right to ban smoking in public buildings because they (and the US taxpayer) own them but I feel it does not have the right to regulate how a private business ought to be run, especially concerning a legal activity.

It's exactly this type of over-regulation that has created the fashionable trans-fat bans in New York City and pending municipalities around the country.

Many will argue that a smoking ban will reduce health care costs over the long run for all of society which is plausible. That same argument could be used to defend a ban on all high-calorie foods of foods very high in saturated fat. Banning these types of food would ostensibly lead to fewer obese people thus reducing health care costs for everyone.

Instead of banning smoking in nearly all private businesses, why doesn't the government create incentives to bar and restaurant owners to make their own decision to ban smoking? These incentives could be tax breaks, easier liquor license renewals, etc. I'm far more likely to visit a bar or restaurant that voluntarily decides to ban smoking compared to those who don't.

Besides, if the crux of the argument to ban smoking in private businesses is the prevention/dangers of second-hand smoke, then why aren't we looking to ban smoking in private homes where children under 18 are present and not able to go anywhere else like an adult would? Shouldn't it be about protecting children first and foremost compared to rational adults who make a conscious decision to choose what bar/restaurant they patronize?