[Smokin' Joe]

I recall when the big push was for non smoking areas in restaurants. That seemed reasonable enough, and some local restaurants even went to the expense of remodeling and revamping their HVAC systems so non-smoking patrons didn't have to be exposed to cigarette smoke.

Now you can't smoke within 50 feet of the door, (in North Dakota--think WINTER). It is a case study in the camel's (small 'c') nose under the tent eventually kicking the Camels out (along with the Marlboros, etc.).

The establishment owners who went to the expense of remodeling and revamping could have saved their money, for all the difference it made.

The moral of the story is that "reasonable" is just a stepping stone to a ban. What sounds "reasonable" just might be, but more often than not, the people pushing for it are not.

[cripplecreek]

The moral of the story is that "reasonable" is just a stepping stone to a ban. What sounds "reasonable" just might be, but more often than not, the people pushing for it are not.

Absolutely true.

[LucianOfSamasota]

Your logic applies to ‘reasonable’ gun control measures as well.

[Rusty0604]

Private businesses like bars and restaurants should never have been told they have to restrict smoking in the first place. If someone doesn’t want to be exposed to smoke they don’t have to work at or patronize the business. A sign at the door would work.