The Journal Times is right that, regarding opposition to proposed smoking bans, that "the only argument that could stand up is the one which asserts a private property right; that the owner of an establishment should have the right to set rules." But alas, "no right is absolute" they conclude and thus they are comfortable doing away with one more.
A little further on in the commentary: "Here individual rights again come into play. There is no right of a tobacco user to FORCE (my emphasis) his use upon everyone else. There is not necessarily an ability to avoid it because in many cases, for example, when one is traveling, eating in a restaurant or tavern is a necessity."
Don't be fooled by the Journal Times' misuse of the word "force". A person invited by an owner of a private business to smoke is not forcing anyone to inhale the second hand smoke. Anyone who is inhaling the smoke is doing so voluntarily, as nobody is forcing them into the establishment.
The only use of force going on here is government forcing more rules on private businesses. And that "right" of our government to the use of force appears more and more absolute with every passing day.
You can read the JT's commentary at: http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2008/11/12/opinion/doc491a1c5e116a5792698637.txt