Seems so simple to me. Which side, does not fairly get most of what they want with that solution? Smokers can business get to keep what they want - and non-smokers get the default for business to be non-smoking requiring some affirmative action on the business owner to make his business a smoking establishment.
I strongly disagree. We should not need to get a license from the government to do what we please on our private property. Private Property rights have been so eroded in this country that they practically do not exist any more.
And if a license scheme is introduced we all know how it will end up. The price to get a license and the conditions to qualify for said license will start out low enough, but will quickly be jacked up to astronomical proportions as it will be seen as nothing more than another revenue stream for the government and these businesses will be considered easy pickins, just as smokers are with the tax increases on tobacco constantly happening.
We all know how government operates. But regarding the smoking ban in NY we need to go back a year. It was determined and businesses were advised that a smoking ban was NOT going to be put in place. But instead they were going to be required to install ceratin 'smoke eaters' in their bars. So businesses invested many thousands of dollars in these smoke eaters to be in compliance when the regulation they were told would happen became reality.
Didn't happen. Government changed its mind and went with a total smoking ban.
Businesses should be able to get Smoking Licenses, just like the can apply for and get liquor licenses. That way, the default for businesses will be non-smoking, but any that choses can become a smoking establishment.Why license it? At best all that does is provide money and jobs to bureaucrats. At worst it lets them limit and control it above and beyond what the owners would do.
Simply requiring a "smoking permitted in this establishment" sign at each entrance accomplishes the same thing without governmental interference.
-Eric