Agreed, Adamatari. I don't understand how someone could have any agreement the values of a free society and propose that the burden is on proving our right to do what we want rather than proving your right to restrict me from doing what I want. Sure, a democracy generally runs on the principle of majority rule, but I would hope most of us have enough tolerance to accept that others will do things that annoy us and that isn't a good enough reason to ban something.

I don't consider the fact that I'm annoyed by smoke a good enough reason to restrict anyone's right to smoke. The health issues are a more serious factor, but I'm not convinced that outdoor smoking is killing or seriously harming many people. How many would it take? I don't know, but I'll need to hear something convincing before I'm going to vote to ban others from enjoying something they like to do.