🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <djdow-0907951541190001@aragorn200.acns.nwu.edu>,
   djdow@nwu.edu wrote:
{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 realize that government CAN ban smoking in restaurants.  I just don't think 
they should.

{:  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. 

Not the same.  A fireworks display is not a restaurant.  If the same thing 
happened in a restaurant, then you could have gone to the management and 
complained.  Then it would be up to them what to do.  If they want to sell 
food to loud drunk people, THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO.  If they want to 
sell food to people who smoke or fart or wear too much perfume, they have that 
right, too.  You of course have the right to eat somewhere else.

{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. 

Why in restaurants?  I can see it in work places, in govt. buildings, in 
hospitals, in schools, etc.  But restaurants are optional.  No one has to go 
there.

{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!

Then lets leave free markets out of this.  I'm advocating that people take 
responsibility for their own lives and just refuse to eat anywhere that 
offends them.  What could be simpler?

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