Rick had these questions to ask about the smoking issues:

"Is it your body? Is it your health?"

Uhm, yeah. Which is why smoking is banned in bars. I'm sure Rick'll be more than familiar with Mill's Harm Principal, which in its essence states that

the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.

Now, I don't entirely agree with this principal: I believe personal liberty is to be carefully weighted against collective utility, but the reason I support a ban on smoking in bars is stated succinctly in it. The harm caused by second hand smoking, foisted upon employees of public bars, outweighs the breach of the personal liberties of smokers.

I don't think it can be said that employees of public bars have implicitly agreed to be exposed to second hand smoke, or that they have an operative choice in the nature of their employment. As such, the freedom of the employees and the freedom of the smoker are in direct conflict. So, the resolution offered by smoking laws like New Zealand's is a pragmatic and practical one: a ruling in favour of an easy solution to the conflict by moving the smokers outside.

Taxation of tobbacco products is a different issue, and one to which the above argument obviously can't be applied to - some have tried, but it involves invoking the grim spectre of the public health system and gets messy pretty quickly. Out of interest, Mill had much to say on this matter too:

Among luxuries of general consumption, taxation should by preference attach itself to stimulants, because these, though in themselves as legitimate indulgences as any others, are more liable than most others to be used in excess, so that the check to consumption, naturally arising from taxation, is on the whole better applied to them than to other things.

In this case, however, I must directly disagree with Mill. In fact, I'm pretty staggered to even find this in Mill's writing (didn't we just read that the moral good of the person is not sufficient warrant?). Another argument for the taxation of tobacco is that economic protection as much of it is imported: while I'm for some forms of economic protection I find this to be unconvincing.

I have to say, I find the taxes levied on tobacco (and alcohol too) to be perplexing. They really seem to be moral judgements disguised as taxes, which is, as Rick would put it, disgusting. I'm certainly, for instance, no fan of ALAC - a moralistic temperance society pretending to be a regulatory body.

In the end, I think the problem of smoking in bars isn't actually a problem with smoking at all. The only reason there's a 'conflict of liberties' is because we have a private business with liabilities to the public under the alcohol licensing system. Thus, if bars were allowed to be private and still sell alcohol the problem would be resolved: if you wish to smoke and drink indoors there would be sure to be a private bar that would cater to your needs. Blah, blah, blah, the market decides and all that wonderful libertarian stuff.