I am a non-smoker who worked in bars all through college. I have nothing against smokers (to each their own) but I finally stopped going out to see my favorite local bands a few years ago because the smoke in bars was so thick that I had a sore, scratchy throat the next day (not to mention that my clothes and hair reeked).

I have seen only one story on the news about "First Monday" and I am someone that keeps up with city level issues. Since only approximatly 25% of the population smokes, why not advertize this smoke free night to reach the other 75% of the population? Now that I know about it (though I don't know which clubs are still participating), I will organize a night out with other like minded non-smoking friends. One night per month is not too much to ask clubs to go smoke free - Mondays are typically slow and/or indistry nights anyway, so I urge club owners to and the city to get the word out to Austin's non-smokers that we CAN go see live music now!

Pamela, I'd have no problem at all with the idea of a smoke-free program for entertainment venues as long as it is voluntary and the City of Austin doesn't attempt to incentivize or subsidize the program. Bar and club owners are the only ones that know their businesses best and the choice to participate should be left to them.

I quit smoking almost four years ago. Nearly all my friends smoke. I don't allow smoking in my apartment and expect my friends to respect my wishes. I also understand that in their homes, I follow their rules. This is primarily a property rights issue.

While the property rights of bar and resturant owners should no doubt be respected, the smoking issue has implications that extend beyond those rights. It affects the health of not only bar employees, but also the patrons (as Pamela pointed out). A generally accepted role of our government is to protect the health of its citizens (e.g., air pollution regulations and other similar legislation).

No doubt the bar owners possess property rights in their own respective businesses. Those rights have limits, though. For example, bars may not (legally) serve alcohol to anyone under 21. I'm sure most bar owners would be happy to serve alcohol to those younger than that. They might also be willing to operate a bar with no fire exits, sprinklers, etc...

In other words, to suggest that because bar owners are in the best position to determine the wishes of their clientele they should be allowed to act on those determinations fails to take into account the government's role in regulating public health and safety.

All of this, of course, doesn't mean I support a $300 license fee. Either ban it or don't (I suppose it's clear where I am on this one).

my two cents, at least.

Mike, I don't think you understand my position here. I assert that the government *deserves no role* in regulating public health and safety; therefore, the City of Austin should politely screw off and stop tampering with our lives.

So yes, my reasoning fails to take into account your objections because my reasoning rejects the very grounds upon which those objections are made. Either you own your property to dispense with as you wish or you don't. You can't have it both ways without glaring contradictions.

What seems to be lost on most people who support such invasive regulation is once the choice is made to interfere with someone's property rights in the name of "public good," just about anything can be claimed to be detrimental to that good and thus nearly any law or regulation is therefore justifed. Witness the creeping tyranny of "sin laws" that has amassed over the years. Freedom is dying in America and while the bigger blows being delivered to it make the papers, it's the pin pricks of localized regulation that grow relatively unnoticed. We've now arrived where you have to fight conventional wisdom on almost everything just to make a point.

Anyway, I have utterly no sympathy for people who bitch about breathing bad air in clubs when they make the conscious, willful choice to enter them. Let them go and play or work elsewhere. At least we still have the freedom to do that.