Perhaps, you could expand your discussion to include the objectionableness of either activity to those who do not engage in it nor wish to be exposed to it. If you examine the core of your argument it is the same as for publicly displaying items of pornography by a business owner.
One is a proven scientific health risk, the other is not a proven scientific health risk.
That is the core of my argument. Not the fact that some find something objectionable and some do not and that the majority should rule. That's YOUR argument.
There is rock solid evidence for very few things in this life. The majority of decisions are made on the basis of probabilities and potential negative consequences versus any positive benefits.
All right, let me rephrase that. There is no preponderance of scientific proof that ETS causes any harm to an otherwise healthy person.
In fact, the opposite is true. The studies run about 80% to 20% against there being any harm done to an otherwise healthy person.
Probabilities - on the side of the business owner.
Potential negative impacts - 1. - the unfair restriction of a property owner's right to allow, or disallow, the use of a legal product on the property. Whether it's open to the public or not has little to do with this argument. 2. - The tyranny, yes tyranny, of the majority, who have been lied to in order to advance an agenda that is not in keeping with the principles of the founding of our nation.
The only smoking ban that I have heard enacted that I agree was done correctly is Florida's. They amended the state's constitution. IMO, in order to take the right of a property owner there MUST be an amendment made.
Potential positive impacts - Some people don't have to smell smoke, ever, in any restaraunt or bar they might, someday, somewhere, maybe want to go into.
It is a purely voluntary tax.
The Master Settlement Agreement was not, and is still not, a tax. The tobacco companies only agreed to it after the government agreed that the companies could pass along the cost to the consumer. Up to that point, for the tobacco companies to pass along that cost was against the law.
At this point in time, no individual can control his or her genetics. Anyone can control whether he or she smokes or exposes others to tobacco smoke. Consequently, if a person can reduce the risk of exposing others to a potentially deadly and costly disease, even incrementally, by a mere act of will, why should lawmakers not mandate such?
Let me rephrase this and see if you agree.
At this point in time, no individual can control his or her genetics. Anyone can control whether he or she smokes or exposes others to tobacco smoke drives a car, mows their lawn, bar-b-ques, drinks liquid other than river water, eats anything but raw vegetables they grow themselves, etc, etc, etc. Consequently, if a person can reduce the risk of exposing others to a potentially deadly and costly disease, even incrementally, by a mere act of will, why should lawmakers not mandate such?
Any one of these acts can, and does, expose someone, somewhere, to carcinigens. Some in much vaster quantities than ETS. Still willing to let your lawmakers mandate such?
The point is that legislatures have examined the situation on behalf of their constituents and decided that restrictions are reasonable.
The FACT is that lawmakers are being lied to the same as the rest of the public. They are basing "reasonable" on lies, scare tactics, and junk science. Are they being naive and dictatorial? Most certainly.
But, wait... all of that has been done, hasn't it?
No, it hasn't. As I said, to date there has been no court challenge of that type.
On the other hand, the federal courts threw out the EPA's report. (You know, the one based on the CDC's statistics.)
The anti-smoker organization ASH sued to have OSHA set a PEL (Permissive Exposure Limit) on ETS and then dropped the case like a hot potato when OSHA told them that they already had PELs for all the substances found in ETS and let them know the amount of cigarettes it would take to reach those PELs.
And still, people like you would rather ignore scientific evidence for the sake of your nose and institute tyranny against property owners for the sake of your convenience.
The rate of taxation of various commodities is not specified in any founding government document. Similarly, neither is the idea that the people's elected representatives are required to even consider such in exercising their delegated power to levy taxes. Therefore, this point is meaningless.
Moot for this discussion, perhaps. Not meaningless.
Such a tax proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back for some of our ancestors.
You keep neglecting to consider the fact that it is not just a "property owner" that is under discussion. Rather, the issue under discussion is property that has been held out by its owner on which to conduct a business open to the "public."
No, I'm not neglecting that fact.
Other regulation, restrictions, etc, are based on a preponderance of scientific proof.
Smoking bans are not. They are based on the dislike, by some people, for the smell of smoke. Nothing more, nothing less. Not a preponderance of scientific evidence as is the case with temperature of food to be served, or stored, not the cleanliness of food preparation areas, not the safe amount of people that can be served in a limited amount of space, not the amount of times the air has to be cleansed, or replaced, such as with airlines, etc, etc, etc.
Your dislike for smoke and the "facts" that have been spoonfed to you are causing you to be deliberately obtuse.
Why will you just not admit that you don't like the smell of smoke and will use government power to enforce your wishes on property owners.