Under the guise of? It IS a health issue. The health risks of smoking are not made up.
And non-smokers do not want their right to breathe clean air taken from them by inconsiderate smokers.
I find it interesting that libertarians and many smokers demand their right to do whatever they want regardless of the effects it has on others, and then tell off others that if they don't like it they can move, and restrict their rights to accommodate the smokers/libertarians.
It all depends on whose rights are they feel are being violated. If it's theirs, the world is ending. If they are violating others, tough beans for the others. Most libertarians/smokers are all for freedom to do what they want but not for others to do the same.
Libertarians are as a whole seriously lacking in common courtesy at a very basic level.
FWIW, I don't want others peeing in the pool water either.
But you can accommodate both, and not ostracize one group in favor of the other. Most resteraunts had smoking and non sm9king sections. But nope, that wasn’t good enough- the non smokers wanted total control. Now folks arent even allowed to smoke in wide open areas like beaches and parks, where again, there could be segregated areas to acco odate both parties. But again, nope, the anti smokers demand total compliance to their dislike of ciggs. You speak,of the one side wanting their rights, and condemn them for it, but the fsct is that the anti side is the one taking their rights away, while asserting their desires over society.
The mandated separate sections in businesses was working. There was no need of banning it everywhere in public. As doodle said, we are all “forced to breathe in exhaust from v3hicles and businesses” but so far noone is demanding a stop to all that.
Also, there were plenty of resteraunts and businesses that banned smoking on their own, which is fine, and it gave non smokers plenty of choices, and smokers plenty of choices where to eat, shop etc. There was room for everyone. Now there isn’t.
This is a property rights issue.
If you’re breathing second hand smoke in a restaurant, and don’t like it, talk to the owner. He/she is permitting that patron to light up on his/her property.
At the same time, if the owner bans cigarette smoking, that the owner’s right, too. If Smokestack Bob rants because he wants to fire up, he can complain to the owner.
With that framework, smoke-haters can solicit smoke-free establishments. Smoke-junkies can solicit smoking permitted places. Everyone walks away happy.
I get your point, and you’re right: Bob et al can’t have it both ways. I also agree that some folks commingle liberty with incivility. If I was a smoker at a smoking permitted diner, and I had a woman in the booth behind me with children, I’d put away my Camels.
The quest for government to settle these disputes (which, knowing you, isn’t your desire necessarily) is what underpins the erosion of so much that has been lost of our rights.
I’m willing to change my smoke-infused clothes before bed to stop the left’s rampage through society.