However, if you want a license to do so, you have to follow the laws of the land.
That is fair enough, I understand the concept of licensing. I know you can ban anything you like, tyranny of the majority and all.
Staff a not slaves, for instance. You don't own them by employing them just as you don't own the customers who visit your 'private' bar.
No I don't force them do anything, you're right about that. Everyone voluntarily walks through those doors. Proponents of this kind of legislation argue that they are forced to go to places full of smoke. Who forces them there? Last time I checked, staff are free to leave at anytime.
The "health" argument is a dangerous one in this case. The next logical step would be to ban the same of alcohol if "health of the people" was a concern. As pointed out earlier, more innocent bystanders die and are harmed by alcohol (accidents, perpetrators of assault) than cigarettes. I can't think of any reason not to ban alcohol based on the reasons for implementing this law. This is the root of my concerns, not whether to ban smoking or not...but simply the need to regulate something that people willingly expose themselves to. Dunno, I guess I'm more in the "let the individual decide what they want"...especially in a case like this where there are choices available.