“Smoking is simply a filthy habit and an inconsiderate irritation forced on others that needs to be banned in closed public areas, just for its social unacceptability.”
Yep, private property rights be damned! We don’t want stinky clothes!
Now that we have established that private property rights are no longer valid for property owners that allow the general public to enter, now we can use that newly formed “public accomodation” definition to do so much fun!
Let’s begin by forcing bakers to make wedding cakes for gay marriages, then we can make photographers take pictures of the same ceremonies! We can force folks to open their bed and breakfasts’ to the joyous occasion!
It doesn’t matter if those business owners object, or have moral/religious objections, they own a business that offers “public accomodation.” As a result, they are no longer free to chose which customers to cater too! They must accomodate the State’s demands!
Enjoy “The Brave New World!” It is well earned.
This is sort of like loud music, fast driving, or degree of nudity, which are quid pro quo issues. One's public deportment is free and personal until it inflicts a disruption of enjoyment of the same space by others. Then it becomes political and an issue that touches on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others who can and may well inflict their dissatisfaction on the personal interests of a perpetrator.
So we tolerate the habits of others, and modify, adjust, or refrain from our own social behaviors lest others retaliate. I was a smoker for a long time, but now the effects are unacceptable if I cannot move away from the source of irritation. Same for body smell that is simply not tolerable.
What's your particular sensitivity? That you don't like to have your beliefs or deportment criticized or limited?
Just pondering on gray-area behaviors.
If the issue is that of self-medication by nicotine (which is a poison), current technology permits this craving to be satisfied without stimulating rejection of non-smokers.
Resorting to snuff-dipping, chewing tobacco, Nicorette (R) nicotine resinous polyacrylate gum, or nicotene skin "patches" are valid options. These alternatives give the non-smoker a break, and may even point toward the benefit of seeing this poisonous and expensive habituation to be abandoned as nonsensical and self-destructive.
The real problem in the politics of tobacco is that the effects of the delivery system is no longer socially tolerable for the majority. Encouraging a different route of ingestion that doesn't directly offend others might be an acceptable solution to all.
But insisting on a total ban on smoking without giving any avenue of enjoying it is not how a free society functions, which is the observation you make and with which I agree.