[mbraynard]

But the state liscences the restaurant or bar. They set rules for serving based on age or intoxication status (you can't serve people who are already drunk). They also have to pass health inspections. They must also put proper advisories on their menu about the content of items.

And smoking actually does have a demonstrable negative affect on customers - asking someone if they have a gun does not.

Care to explain the difference?

[SUSSA]

First there is no reputable medical study that says second hand smoke is harmful to any one. In fact, the most reputable studies on the subject say it is not.

Start looking here.

http://www.data-yard.net/43/1057.pdf

And then see this Enormous German study on passive smoke, cancer and cardiovascular disease that says: >NO CONNECTION< - April, 2003 -- Dating back one year, this milestone study published by the American Journal of Epidemiology has been so thoroughly ignored by the public health gangs and its media servants - it has escaped even our attention! The enormous study covers 37 years, during which thousands of filght attendans have been followed and monitored for cancer. Furthermore, this is not a study based on questionnaires asking whether uncle Jack smoked more or less in 1956, as it's the case for most antismoking junk science -- nor it is something started and finished in a few months. Finally, it is neither financed by the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, nor is it supported by "public health" funds allocated to produce scientific frauds to support public health's frauds on smoking. All that explains the results. Here is an excerpt that says it all:

"We found a rather remarkably low SMR [standardized incidence ratio] for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights. The risk of cardiovascular disease mortality for male and female air crew was surprisingly low (reaching statistical significance among women)."

The word "surprisingly" even betrays the expectation of the researchers that passive smoke hurts - quite indicative of today's superstitions induced by the antismoking frauds: but the results betray politics. In spite of all the USSR-like suppression of positive information by the "public health" gangsters, therefore, more evidence that the nearly universal smoking bans on passenger airlines is unjustified comes from researchers who examined the specific health risks associated with working in commercial aviation. Banning smoking on airlines makes no more sense than banning smoking in a restaurant or office building. None of the studies on secondhand smoke have ever demonstrated the epidemiological existence of a risk.

Here’s the link to the study.

http://www.data-yard.net/39/cabin.pdf

See these also.

http://www.data-yard.net/35/krager.htm

http://www.data-yard.net/14/1666.htm

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7232/417

http://www.data-yard.net/2/15/ala-ats2.htm

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/csd/Presentations/ETS_demo_rep_pop_MONTEREY_2000.pdf

I could give you plenty more, but if you will take the time to read these you will see that you are being duped by the MSM and the tobacco prohibitionists. You need to learn that the MSM should never be taken at face value.