🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3tor2l$7jf@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
   hartmans@ix.netcom.com (Jack and Kay Hartman ) wrote:
{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.

Huh?  I don't understand what you're saying.

{>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.  

Going into a restaurant is an act of free will.  You can go in or you can stay 
out.  If the govt. made you go in, then I can see an argument for banning 
smoking.  But a restaurant is a private establishment, someone owns it.  They 
should be able to fill it with whatever noxious gasses they want, as long as 
they post a sign outside that lets people know.

{>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.

I'm not talking about anyone's right to smoke.  I'm talking about business 
owners right to regulate their property.  Why should the government get its 
fingers into this matter?  Do non-smokers need protection?  We can't cook at 
home?

**************************************************
Visit Astroboy International World Headquarters at
http://www.neosoft.com/~astroboy/