Replies

The public health laws exist to - guess what - protect the public health. There is no "property right" issue on public health. Owning a restaurant does not give anyone the "right" to inflict harm on their customers or to allow them to be harmed. (That ficticious "right" sounds very Democratic to me. We Republicans are all supposed to know that any inherent rights we claim reach an end when they harm others, as tobacco smoke definitely does.)

Protecting the public health includes protecting the public from health hazards. Cigarette smoke is a certfied health hazard. Restaurants are already subject to public health laws. The logic here is simple, and legal. Don't go claiming any fictious "right" here to damage the health of others; there isn't one.

As a biologist, knowing how damaging tobacco is to humans and animals, I would outlaw it totally tomorrow morning if I had the power to do so. Marijuana is illegal - and it should be - but tobacco is a drug that is both more addictive and more damaging to the user and others than marijuana is, so it should be illegal as well.

And it certainly should never be allowed in public places where its use always damages others. Tobacco smoking is simply totally wrong for so many reasons (addictive, carcinogenic, toxic, etc.), and in public it's a public health hazard.

Don't smoke in public. Don't let others smoke in public. It harms other people.

And save your own life: quit smoking now, for your own good.

"Owning a restaurant does not give anyone the "right" to inflict harm on their customers or to allow them to be harmed."

No one said it did. Very simply put, if you think you will be harmed, then it is YOUR responsibility to avoid these places, and to instead patronize places that are more friendly to your desires. The only way a restaurant owner would have the "right" to harm you (and heaven knows why he would) is if you had no choice but to go there and they locked the doors behind you when you entered, which is clearly not the case. Complaining about smokers in a smoking restaurant is akin to sitting on a dungheap and and complaining about the smell. You have the right to go to another establishment, you have the right to go to a store (most of which are smoke free) and buy and cook your own food, and you have the right to hit the drive through or carry out from restaurants that allow smoking. Conversely, there is no "right" to eat out. However, the Constitution does say something about taking private property without just compensation...which is exactly what is being done incrementally to property owners all over the United States in the name of such "noble" causes as public health, urban development, environmentalism, etc. It might seem like nothing to you, but that's just one more purpose for which the property owner can no longer use his own property.

"That ficticious "right" sounds very Democratic to me"

That's why I didn't say it. I never said I had the right to harm anyone. It's just a question of who you want to be responsible for your own safety...you, or the government. I said that a property owner has the right to run his establishment the way he wants and for his own purpose, so long as it is made clear to all what's going on inside if it should be open to the public. They then have the freedom to choose not to go there if they believe it will be harmful to themselves. But, instead of acting like adults and making choices, some want to be able to walk around blindly with the full protection of the Nanny government. This, to them, is a lot easier than thinking. So, they ask the government to swoop in and save them from people exercising their rights so they can continue to lead a responsibility-free life.

"Protecting the public health includes protecting the public from health hazards."

And, it is truly amazing, once the foot is in the door, so to speak, what can be construed as a "public health hazard". Ridiculous.

"Cigarette smoke is a certfied health hazard. Restaurants are already subject to public health laws. The logic here is simple, and legal. Don't go claiming any fictious "right" here to damage the health of others; there isn't one."

You're right. If you leave, I cannot damage your health, and you have exercised your rights to preserve your safety. Bravo, very simple, and no government involvement. But there definitely is a right to property, and government's disregard of it, nor your hatred of it make it any less so. I fail to understand why people who say that they are conservatives lobby the government to take away their freedoms, just so they can eat out. That's a good reason to disregard the intentions of the Constitution, right?

"As a biologist, knowing how damaging tobacco is to humans and animals, I would outlaw it totally tomorrow morning if I had the power to do so. "

Oh, yeah, well you know best. Far be it from us to suggest that we may do with our bodies what we wish. Statements like this amuse me. We get it already. Smoking is bad. You shouldn't do it. People are still gonna, so let's move on! I know it is hard for you to accept that some people take risks for enjoyment, and at times, I wonder if that's really what this is all about, since I am not suggesting anything close to what you are saying (i.e., that I have a "right" to kill you...you can always leave). You know, having had an alcoholic uncle, and a grandfather who died of a heart attack, I could say the same thing about drinking and high cholesterol foods. But, you see, it isn't my right to tell you what to do, just like it isn't your right to tell those business owners what to do. Mind your own business. If you don't like it, don't go in. Why is that so hard for you? Could it be that your agenda is really NOT about people's health, but about control?

"Don't smoke in public. Don't let others smoke in public. It harms other people."

Let freedom, supply and demand, and the free market dictate which restaurants will be smoke-free and leave everyone else alone. I know this is hard for you to accept, but some people wish to live their lives without the benefit of your wisdom.