If the employees are the motivating factor behind this legislation, should a bartender at a dance bar be able to control the whole business because of advancing deafness or a sensitivity to sound?  What about the waiter who is subject to developing migraines induced by bright, flashing lights?  

I'm not a lawyer and I ask these questions seriously.  

It seems to me that these arguments are one and the same.  With hearing loss actually being more quantitative than damage created by second hand smoke, are we going to soon see a prohibition against garage bands playing down at the Knot Hole?

Where does it logically end?  With third hand smoke?  With an outlawing of heady perfume and cologne?  Some legislators in Mississippi tried to enact legislation that would have outlawed any restaurant from serving fatty or fried foods to any customer who was obese.  (It failed to pass but I suspect some dogooder will be back at it soon enough.)  

For you it might end with second hand smoke down at the tavern.  For others it will not end until other invasive frontiers are conquered.  

I find it troubling that bureaucrats make every advance they can toward controlling activities that take place behind the closed doors of private establishments and consequently of relieving citizens of their responsibility (and ability) to take care of themselves.  I am a non-smoker and have learned effectively to dodge the evil gray smoke of cigarettes (though I get facefuls of campfire smoke whenever I head to campgrounds that are still allowed by law to permit campfires and barbecue grills.) Why aren't others assumed to be as able as I am?