So there I am, at 6:00 in the a.m., going over the opposition's proposed jury instructions.  Naturally, I am not in a great mood.  (This mood was not improved by the opposition?s decision to use a squirrelly, 8-point font.)

I am listening to KMOX and half paying attention, when I hear yet more about this smoking ban that seems to have captured the attention of every big government zealot in Missouri.  As a non-smoker and the parent of a child with asthma--heck, as the parent of a child, period--I am not a huge fan of cancer sticks.

But I have to say, there are two great reasons to enthusiastically reject the proposed smoking ban in Missouri and in the individual towns:

First, it's the economy, stupid.  A smoking ban would hurt restaurants, casinos, and bars.  Think about it: if a smoking ban would either be neutral or would help these establishments, don't you think these places would have started smoking bans of their own volition years ago?  Sure, it's possible that Clayton aldermen who have never run a restaurant in their lives are better prepared to explain the subtleties of small-business economics to highly successful restauranteurs. 

On the other hand, it's far more likely that common sense is correct: the economy, which is already faltering, is going to tank if we allow this ban to pass.  And anti-ban folks have the neutrally-gathered statistics to back it up:

(1) Illinois smokers have been flocking to Missouri casinos since Illinois started its own smoking ban, leading to a precipitous drop in Illinois casino income.  Where are all of those Illinois gamblers going to go if we start our own statewide ban here in Missouri?  (Hint: Casinos in their own state is probably closer than the ones in ours.) 
(2) The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, a neutral source if I've ever heard of one, notes that after Columbia, Missouri instituted its own indoor smoking ban, restaurants have experienced a five percent sales decline.  Just to survive, they must build costly outdoor patios and recreation areas.  What about the smaller businesses with no funds or space for such a project?
(3) The Fed also reports that, under a smoking ban, restaurant employment will decline between 4 and 16 percent.  That number is even higher in places where (imagine this!) people like to smoke.  Places like, well, Missouri.

Some argue that the economics justify a smoking ban because we are headed for a national health care system.  More smokers = higher taxes = tanking economy.  You mean higher taxes hurt the economy?  And here I thought higher taxes helped the economy by providing more necessary social services to our citizens, thus making them better able to take advantage of business opportunities!  My word, maybe this phenomenon extends to other areas of high taxation!  Someone should commission a study!

All liberal hypocrisy and conservative sarcasm aside, the solution to this problem is simple: disallow Barack Obama from nationalizing health care.  When we allow the government to intervene and create a "right" to crappy government health care, we invite the government to make decisions about our health for us. 

Which leads to my second point about why the ban is a bad idea: it's a rights issue.  Employers have the right to choose whether to allow smoking in their establishments.

Yes, we've all heard the heart-rending arguments about employees who are "forced" to work in smoky bars and children whose parents drag them, kicking and screaming, into a secondhand smoke-filled environment.  But that's such nonsense.  Employees aren't forced to work anywhere in America, with the few exceptions made for slimeball human traffickers.  And from what I read about those guys, they aren't forcing people to work at the local Applebee's.

Employees can work just about anywhere they choose, even if all they possess is a high school diploma, GED, or even less than that.  Unemployment is only 7.6% nationally and 7.3% in Missouri.  I'll grant you, that's a higher number than we're used to.  But I've noticed my local Wallie World is hiring.  And so is every fast food restaurant I like (and that's a lot of restaurants).

But what about the kids?  Well, what about the kids?  No one is taking his kid to the local bar or casino.  Tthe last time I tried, I was told of this law that involved the number "21."

So that leaves restaurants.  An hour's worth of secondhand smoke inhaled in Denny's isn't going to hurt most kids any more than ingesting Eggs Over My Hammy.  Admittedly, no level of secondhand smoke is considered "safe," but technically, it's not "safe" to cross the street every day.

More importantly, it's not my call--and it's certainly not the government's call--to legislate good and bad parenting choices.  Unless a parent is abusing his child (and exposing a child to secondhand smoke, while stupid and annoying, is not abusive), the government needs to stay out of parenting decisions.

In short, we are considering allowing the government to dictate our business decisions, our health care decisions, our lifestyle decisions, and even our parenting decisions.  When the smoking ban comes to the ballot, tell the government to butt out.