Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiffs-bar owners’ motions for preliminary and permanent injunction in action alleging that defendants’ ordinance prohibiting smoking in most public places violated their due process and equal protection rights, as well as violated plaintiffs’ freedom of association rights under federal and Indiana constitutions. Because smoking is not fundamental right, applicable standard for upholding ordinance is rational basis, and plaintiffs did not satisfy said standard, where plaintiffs did not negate every conceivable basis that might support instant ordinance, since Dist. Ct. could properly credit defendants' expert opinion regarding health concerns associated with secondhand smoke, and since defendants could have believed that instant ordinance would encourage more smokers to quit. Fact that defendants exempted tobacco specialty bars from ordinance did not require different result, where patrons in said specialty bars were not being involuntarily subjected to secondhand smoke, and where said specialty bars depended on tobacco sales. Ct further rejected plaintiffs’ claim that instant ordinance violated their freedom of association rights since socializing with friends at neighborhood bar did not qualify as either intimate or expressive association.