Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a corner of the pool to pee in.
Please, there is a world of difference and it has been shown time and time again.
ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) has not been proven to cause lasting physical harm to an otherwise healthy person with no pre-existing health conditions.
Pee in a pool has been proven to be harmful for a variety of reasons.
For example, consider fire safety laws, occupancy limits, sale/use of illicit substances, etc. Prohibiting smoking is no different than any of those other restrictions on a "private" business.
Sorry, but it is different. Again, all of these restriction have proof behind them that they can cause problems if not followed. Other than, perhaps, the sale/use of illicit (illegal?) substances.
There is no rock hard evidence that ETS causes any problems for otherwise healthy people.
I care if you make me pay through my taxes that support medicare for indigent smokers who have spent all their money on thier habit and its results. I care if you are responsible for taking up medical research money that could be going to cure some disease that the sufferer can not prevent through a simple act of will.
The smoker pays MUCH more in taxes, and the Master Settlement Agreement between the states AGs and the tobacco companies, than is used for medicare covered indigent smokers.
As for medical research money - do you really believe there is a disease that ONLY smokers get?
Look up the percentages of diseases between smokers and nonsmokers. You'll find it fairly close to the percentages of population that smoke and don't smoke.
Does smoking increase the risk of certain types of ailments? Yes. But genetics seems to play a much larger role than smoking.
Does being exposed to ETS increase the risk of certain types of ailments? The studies run about 80% to 20% against this. Proof? I hardly think so.
The will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives is within the bounds of "liberty" as long as there is no infringement upon the constitutions of either the individual state or the US.
While I believe there are constitutional issues that could be brought to bear - I'm not a laywer and no one to date has tried this approach with smoking bans.
I will say that I thought this was a Constitutional Republic, formed with, at least the thought of, protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Your mileage may vary.
The government of the people, by the people and for the people has the the right through their freely elected representatives to set reasonable restrictions upon property rights of anyone who holds himself or herself out as doing business with the public.
I have highlighted the pertinent part of this.
Is it reasonable to require a property owner to disallow the use of an otherwise legal product with no proof that the use thereof harms anyone with the exception of, perhaps, the user?
If the use of that product creates a dangerouse situation, (fireworks factory), then yes, that restriction is valid. If the use doesn't create a dangerouse situation, (restaraunt, bar), then it seems this wouldn't hold water.
Do you have the same objections to taxes on beer, wine, liquor, perfume, etc.?
If they are taxed at the same percentage as tobacco, especially pre-packaged cigarettes, then yes, I do have a problem with that.
Can you name one legal product that is taxed at the same percentage as pre-packaged cigarettes?
Good luck looking.
In the end, smoking will add risk for certain ailments. ETS has not been proven to do this.
Tobacco is a legal commodity. To sell, buy, and use.
Unfair restrictions are being levied upon the ability to allow it's use by a property owner based on outright lies, scare tactics, and junk science.
This isn't about your dislike of smoke or my convenience to smoke.
It's about the right of a property owner to allow, or disallow, the use of an otherwise legal product that hasn't been shown to cause harm to anyone not a direct user of the product.