🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3tp1eg$hd8@uuneo.neosoft.com>, astroboy@neosoft.com (Mr. Fun) wrote:

: 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.

Your premise is incorrect. A restaurant is *not* a private establishment.
Your *home* is a private establishment. A restaurant is a public
accomodation that invites members of the public into it for the purpose of
exchanging a commodity for money. The terms & conditions under which it
may do so are subject to government regulation, and have always been so
subject under Ango-American law, not to mention Continental law. For
instance, (and unlike the French) American governments ban dogs from
restaurant. They ban the sale of alcohol without a license. They attempt
to ban roaches. In short, there is nothing that the government cannot ban
or control in a restaurant, with the exception of matters related to the
first (and arguably second) and 14th amendments. The authority of
governments to ban smoking in restaurants is clear.

:  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?

Yes, nonsmokers need protection. A smoker is like a person with a loud
voice. Last Monday night we were out at the fireworks display by the Lake.
All during the display, a (presumably) drunk woman kept yelling,
monotonously, "Get down, oh get down!"  I was far enough away to tune her
out, but the poor folks near her had the experience effectively ruined. 

And just like that loud person, many smokers do not understand or care
about the impact of their behavior on other people. So it is necessary to
control their behavior whenever they are in a position to inflict it on
other people.  A total ban is not, IMHO, necessary, but control is. 

Free markets are fine for many things. In economic theory they have
wonderful outcomes. Reality is messy. It involves many values beyond the
reach of economics. How'd William Jennings Bryan put it?... You shall not
crucify mankind on a cross of free market economics!