The state Senate today passed a smoking ban now being criticized as too soft, too full of compromise. It should have been tougher, proponents say.

It shouldn’t have been passed at all.

I suppose as a good liberal I’m supposed to support smoking bans. But here’s an instance (one of many, actually) where I’m not liberal at all. I dislike smoking bans - not because I don’t think government has a role to play in ensuring clean air, but because smoking bans ultimately tell private business owners how they are to conduct their business. And in this case, I think that’s nonsense.

If you are going to ban smoking on the grounds of public health, do so - ban it in arenas and convention centers, places where large groups of people may gather and have a reasonable expectation of not having to endure someone blowing smoke in their face or even their general direction.

But when it comes to bars and restaurants - what business is it of the government to tell the owners of private establishments that they are not to permit patrons to smoke? That is and should remain a purely business decision, both for the owners of the establishment and his patrons. Frankly, if you don’t want to go to a place like the Brickyard because it’s too smoky - don’t go. Find another place to eat. And if enough people do that, then maybe the restaurant will get the message; maybe its owners will realize that they are losing revenue by permitting some patrons to smoke. And that they’d make more money by banning it than they are by permitting it.

At what point is it appropriate for government to insert itself into this process? How about not at all.

It is not the government’s job to protect you from secondhand smoke in a bar or restaurant you freely choose. But we have this idea that not only is it appropriate - it’s necessary. That because the restaurant I like to frequent permits smoking and I don’t like secondhand smoke, it’s not me who has the problem - it’s them. And it’s therefore appropriate for government to ride in and right that wrong by telling the restaurant owner what to do.

Republican legislators, “conservatives” from Lancaster County who support this nonsense in particular should be ashamed of themselves. This is exactly what Sen. Mary Jo White, Republican of Venango County, told the Philadelphia Inquirer: “nanny government telling people what’s good for them.”

But more than that, it’s nanny government telling business owners how to run their business. The public should have a reasonable expectation of clean air in a public place - but eating and drinking establishments are not purely public places; they are private spaces to which the public may, but is not required, to enter. Where the public has no choice, a smoking ban is appropriate. Where the public has a choice, it’s not the business of government to limit those choices. Let the market do that. You might have a right to clean air in a public park, but you don’t have a right to clean air in a particular Italian restaurant simply because you like the linguine and don’t want to go anywhere else.