There is no "individual right" to inflict harm on another.
Virginia's restaurant ban takes effect in December - What a relief!!

This is great! As for "individual rights, I feel I have the right not to be exposed to something that can harm me. If this was an issue of asbestos, for instance, it would have to be removed so why not secondhand smoke?

Just a minor detail this study has already been shown to have been very selective in it's data selection as Professor Michael Siegel has shown.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

The reasons why the report failed to consider these national data are not clear. However, what is clear is that these data were not presented and reviewed in the report.

For this reason, I believe that the conclusions of the report are severely biased. You cannot possibly come to an unbiased conclusion about the effects of smoking bans on heart attacks if you only consider data which support the contention that these bans are having a strong effect. Obviously, if you exclude data which are counter to your conclusion, you are going to bias your analysis.

It appears this is exactly what happened here.

Remember that a meta-analysis or review of data is only as good as its success in reviewing all relevant data that are available. If you only include data that support your position, you are going to end up with a biased conclusion.

By the way, the data for England and Scotland are readily available online and I believe that the committee was made aware of the existence of these data.

The rest of the story is that the report is biased because it fails to include very relevant data from England, Scotland, and Wales which show no evidence that the smoking bans in those countries caused significant short-term reductions in acute coronary event hospital admissions. Because of the size of the populations covered by these data, including them in the overall review would have negated the overall conclusion of the report.

So including relevant data would have shown smoking bans have not reduced MI at all.

This is great and expected news. However I still don't see why smoking sections with approved, efficient ventilation methods aren't acceptable.

We all have the right to clean air. Hospitals had to ban smoking on their grounds because people were smoking in front of entrances and those with severe smoke allergies and asthmatics were affected. Smoke if you want but not in the same air I have to breath.

85% of us non smokers have the right to inhale clean fresh air with no second hand tobacco smoke.

That is not exactly what the study said. These are exact quotes from the study.

"While the committee found strong evidence of this association, the evidence for determining the precise magnitude of the increased risk—that is, the number of cases of disease that are attributable to secondhand-smoke exposure—is not as strong. The committee therefore did not estimate the size of the effect."

"Given the small amount of data for nonsmokers, however, the committee could not determine how much of the positive effect of bans is attributable to nonsmokers as compared to smokers”

"However, none of the studies included information on how long or how often individuals were exposed to secondhand smoke before or after implementation of smoking bans”.

"The committee recommends additional research on the effect of indoor smoking bans and secondhand-smoke exposure on acute coronary events."

“A large prospective cohort study could be very helpful in more accurately estimating the magnitude of the risk of cardiovascular disease and acute coronary events posed by secondhand-smoke exposure.”

The study is not conclusive more data is needed.

The right to breathe clean air that is a oxymoron. You breathe dirty filthy air everyday caused primarily by fossil fuels.

This is what the Constitution gives us: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Having the choice to eat or work at a nonsmoking or smoking, is freedom granted to us by the Constitution, prohibition is not!