They're doing something worse than that. They're deciding for the business owner. There are businesses that will fail because of the high-minded self righteousness of fools such as Dane.

Guess what, Dane? There will always be plenty of places to dine that won't permit smoking. Your $1,600 smoke-free dining experience may not be available in every single establishment. But if you're looking to drop that kind of coin, I imagine that someone will be willing to accommodate you.

You might just want to allow that some folks want to have a beer and a smoke after work, and that some business owners might want to cater to that crowd.

What's wrong? Here's what wrong:

The market WOULDN'T decide.

For hundreds of years, people have been allowed to smoke in bars and restaurants. Non-smokers have had to endure smoking and it's hazardous side-effects. Non-smokers HAD NO CHOICE.

Since it's been proven to be a carcinogen, governments WORLDWIDE have enacted laws restricting smoking in public places. Why? Because, again, for the 10th time, it's a HEALTH HAZARD.

This isn't about a "business owner" deciding to serve only red meat or white meat, or the choice between serving beer or alcohol. It's about invading another person's rights to clean, smoke-free air.

Why can't you understand that?

Here, I'll make it simple for you:

1. Go to a restaurant and have a nice meal.
2. Go to a restaurant, have a nice meal while enduring carcinogenic cigarette smoke while eating.

I'll take number 1.

Under what legal pretense should I be FORCED to inhale second-hand smoke if all I want is a meal? And if I don't want to inhale second-hand smoke, you're telling me my only option is to NOT GO?

Brilliant! :spock:

Again, this isn't about smokers. It's about business, and property owners being dissallowed to accept legal activities in their place of business. As far as your welfare mom goes, most gas stations, and grocery stores don't allow smoking. Those would be great career choices. Or, she could just go to one of the thousands of non smoking restaurants already in place.

A government that was concerned about the public health would probably do a lot more than a government that is concerned about revenues and promoting profit above all else.

They'll just pass the BILLION'S of lost tax revenue on to your property taxes. Then hammer alcohol taxes since that kills more people. It's only fair. :thumb:

Well, once the government is forcing us all to use cheese-based health care, smoking will be costing them a hell of a lot of money. That's money that takes away from their pet projects and pork barrel spending. They will care.

They could ban it, like they do with other dangerous products. Or they could raise taxes to keep paying for the spiraling costs.

You're right that the same forces who would yoke us with communist health care never saw a tax they didn't like. I was just pointing out that banning it outright as a dangerous chemical makes more sense than the government putting its mitts on private enterprise.

You don't own the business, you socialist dickhead. Shut the **** up. You have nothing to say in this discussion.

Interesting. I guess that I would agree with banning smoking in restaurants for the most part. I'd say that smoking detracts from a restaurant environment fairly substantially. In addition, the average meal only lasts an hour or two, which most smokers that I know of can last without a cigarette. Also, I'd imagine that the incidence rate of smokers for people who go to restaurants is near the incidence rate for the general population (18 percent).

It's bars that get me, though. While I do agree that smoking tends to detract from the environment a bit, it doesn't seem to me that it's near as big of a deal as it is in restaurants. People are also there for longer periods of time - sometimes as much as 6 hours or more - so the likelihood that a smoker would be able to just "go without" is far smaller. Finally, I could be wrong on this, but I would guess that the incidence rate of smokers for people who go to bars is much larger than the incidence rate of the general population since alcohol and smoking tend to go hand in hand for many people.

I guess that, to me, it's far less likely that a smoking ban will harm the business of a restaurant than the business of a bar. That's a lot of the reason why I think smoking bans in bars are going a bit too far.

Well, the alternative is to ban every single substance that contributes to the death of innocent people. How about no smokes, alcohol, fast food, fast cars, etc.? Let's keep it real. When you personally are making a sacrifice you'll be more qualified to tell everyone else what they should give up.

That ship sailed long, long ago. Look no further than the ADA for shining example.

Besides, how far are you willing to go? Can I, as a proprietor, ban blacks? How about just people over 6 feet tall? Can I hire all female pygmies? Everyone has a line about what is or isn't acceptable in certain circumstances. They just happen to be crossing one of yours right now.

There's a reason we're not a democracy, sir.

Study says Smoking damages IQ. LMAO

http://puzzles.about.com/b/2004/12/1...damages-iq.htm

I think if we have govt run healthcare then smokers should get no lung-related treatment, drinkers no liver related treatment, etc.

Sure it's stupid, but it's no dumber than govt. run healthcare.

Actually there have been market forces deciding.
Perkins alternates evenings for smokers and non-smokers.
Village Inn put in it's own ban...occassionally has a smokers' night or day. I see this as private enterprise trying to find a way to please both publics.

Besides eating in a restaurant is a discretionary action.

LMAO