The neo-temperance movement marches on, and there is little anyone can do to stop it. The Washington Post reports that the D.C. lawmakers are smoking ban is imminent and soon all of Maryland will be "smoke free".

As a non-smoker, I have no problems with smoke-free restaurants. But I do take issue with the government mandating property owners to outlaw smoking. Business owners should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they want to cater to smokers. And non-smokers are free to choose whether or not they want to eat a restaurant based on it's smoking preferences. The idea that all restaurants should be smoke-free just in case they may some day want to eat there, is absurd.

Being a free state (and a tobacco state) the neo-temperance movement has thus far spared Virginia. Yet we still have a good selection of smoke-free restaurants to choose from.

In Virginia, where tobacco interests have long held political sway, a statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants seems unlikely anytime soon. And because the state's constitution generally forbids counties from passing laws more restrictive than the state's, local jurisdictions are hindered in efforts to pass anti-smoking measures. Still, in Alexandria, more than 50 restaurants have voluntarily agreed to ban smoking on their premises, according to city officials.

The free market works, imagine that. In the liberal la-la-land that is Maryland, misery loves company.

Even some Maryland restaurant and bar owners. . .tell lawmakers they'd be willing to live with a statewide ban if the District follows through with its own legislation, eliminating that competition.

So control only works when it's tried everywhere. That sounds a bit like the gun grabbers. In some parts of Maryland, business owners face a smoking ban yet again, even though they've already invested thousands of dollars to cater to non-smokers.[Howard County] Council member David A. Rakes (D-East Columbia) intends to submit legislation that grandfathers in establishments with sealed-off smoking areas.

"They've already spent so much money to comply with our old law that we shouldn't now change the rules on them," he said.And therein lies the slippery slope. When you allow lawmakers to take away a few of your rights, you have no guarantee that they won't soon be back for more.

The anti-smoking campaign started with airplanes. It has morphed into telling property owners that they cannot allow people to smoke on their property. Soon smoking bans will include private homes and vehicles, in the name of protecting the children.

And just like the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and 30s, it will lead to more crime, more violence, and more limits on the law-abiding. Let's not forget that gun control was borne largely from the temperance movement.