🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3tor2l$7jf@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, hartmans@ix.netcom.com 
says...
>
>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

I wonder if we can form a houston.eats.politics newsgroup to handle the 
clearly off-topic discussion that has taken over this one.