I think the best form of compromise would be to just let the market resolve this issue. Let some businesses be "smoker friendly", where smokers don't have to worry about going outside. Let other businesses be "nonsmoker friendly", where there's no smoking at all and no one has to be exposed to the slightest amount of tobacco. And let some businesses be "group friendly", where smokers are allowed in but have to go to designated areas when they light up. It would be up to each business owner to choose what kind of place he would like to run, or to choose some new setup that I can't imagine.
That seems like a fair compromise to me. And since we don't have to empower the government or restrict any rights, it will satisfy cranky ideologues like myself, too.
but in order for smokers not to harm anyone else, why cant they extend the courtesy of stepping outside for a smoke?
I tend to focus on the political side of the debate, so I'm usually not concerned about who should yield in the interests of politeness. I don't smoke, but then again smoke usually doesn't bother me, so I've never really had to deal with this problem.
I will say that regardless of how rude some smokers may be, that doesn't justify placing unneeded restrictions on property owners. It may explain it- after all, it's easier to drum up support when you can target an unpopular group- but it doesn't justify it.
I will also say that I can understand the smokers' desire to have a few places of their own. As far as I know, no Freeper expects every venue to allow them to light up. All they are asking for is to let the business owner decide, so there might be a few places where they can smoke in peace.
I would liken it to the "Crybaby Matinee" sponsored by some of the movie theaters in my area. The idea is to set aside one weekday afternoon where moms can come to see a movie with their young children and not have to worry about trying to keep the kids quiet. It's a nice way to get moms out of the house without making them stress out over Junior's antics.
I could complain to my city council that having loud children in a movie theater is a distraction and should never be allowed, but I think it's better to let the theaters choose their own policy. After all, I can always go to another theater, so why would I want to butt in and inject the government between the theater owners and the grateful moms?
in places like NYC where i am, it's tough because, as you can imagine, space is at a premium.
i dont advocate restricting rights for restricting rights sake, but there is a definite health concern here. no, i don't think 2nd hand smoke kills people as much as people say, but i do think it is harmful. there seems to be no right answer to this questions. it depends on which angle you are coming from. do health concerns trump the rights of a certain sect f the population, or is it the other way around?