🚀 go-pugleaf

In <3tnniu$5i3@uuneo.neosoft.com> astroboy@neosoft.com (Mr. Fun)
writes: 
>
>My view:
>
>1. Allowing smoking and banning men are not analagous.  Allowing
smoking is 
>inclusive.  Banning men is exclusive.

When you open up the free market argument, this is a possibility.  I
agree the two are not the same but I can use the free market argument
equally to justify both.  I don't think the free market argument
applies to smoking in restaurants.

>3. I don't have a right to a smoke free restaurant.  Access to
restaurants is 
>not covered in the Bill of Rights.  I can survive without them.

Access to restaurants in specific is not covered but equal protection
in general is.  The definition of equal protection has changed over the
years. At one time not very long ago, equal protection did not apply to
issues of race.  Now it does.  I think an argument that can be made
that smokers deny non-smokers equal protection if one needs to uphold
the constitutionality of anti-smoking legislation.  

>4. Smokers don't have a right to smoke in any restaurant they choose. 
Same 
>deal as above.  They can wait till they get outside.

In California, smokers don't have a right to smoke in any restaurant. 
Since January 1, dining out in California has become a much more
pleasant experience.  The non-smokers (the majority of the people I
might point out) can now eat out without having smoke covering up the
aroma of their food.  The smokers must wait until they get outside
before they light up.  Their right to smoke (I use the term loosely as
I do not believe that there really is such a right) is not abridged.

Kay