[Roscoe]

Lacking proof of harm, why would the dissolution of a persons property rights , to allow a LEGAL commodity to be consumed in their place of business, be allowed?

A "no smoking" regulation in a restaurant open to the public is "the dissolution of a persons property rights." There's some overheated rhetoric.

Would your logic extend to saying that a state regulation requiring restaurant staff to wash their hands after using the bathroom is "the dissolution of a persons property rights?"

[Just another Joe]

Would your logic extend to saying that a state regulation requiring restaurant staff to wash their hands after using the bathroom is "the dissolution of a persons property rights?"

Let's go back to, "Lacking proof of harm", shall we?

A "no smoking" regulation in a restaurant open to the public is "the dissolution of a persons property rights."

That sentence should have been, I believe, a question. And, yes, it is. If the owner of that business wants to make it a non-smoking business I have no problem with them doing so voluntarily. Having the force of law do it is, "the dissolution of a persons property rights" because there is no PROOF of harm and there is no allowance for those who would NOT have their business be non-smoking.