Replies

Too many Freepers can't appreciate the difference between an inherently intrusive activity like smoking and a non-intrusive one like over-eating at a buffet.

Some of us appreciate the difference, but still fail to see any need for government regulation. Can you appreciate that difference?

You want to talk "intrusive"? Let's talk about government intrusion on the free market with laws like these.

Some of us -- even this non-smoker who hates the smell of cigarette smoke -- think the mere suggestion of anything resembling any sort of "right" to a smoke-free restaurant dining experience is absolutely ludicrous, bordering on nanny-state insanity.

I have to agree 100%. I don't like smoking, either. I DO NOT have the right to tell others what to do, or force the heavy hand of government on them because I don't like what they are doing.
Many restaraunts had "non-smoking" sections. I am very sensitive to cigarette smoke, and I was never bothered. Now, we have Big Brother forcing a businesses to have a 100% "smoke free" environment. If these so called good citizens are so concerned, they don't have to do business with these establishments. I do, however believe smoking should be prohibited in such obvious places as stores, doctors offices and theatres.

Some of us -- even this non-smoker who hates the smell of cigarette smoke -- think the mere suggestion of anything resembling any sort of "right" to a smoke-free restaurant dining experience is absolutely ludicrous, bordering on nanny-state insanity.

Very well put.

I've got no problem with the owner of an establishment choosing to go non-smoking. I'll just choose not to go there. But since he has the right to make that choice, why isn't the smoker, who owns a restaurant, allowed to make the same type of choice as to permit smoking?

Smokers and non-smokers (such as yourself) agree on this point. It is only the anti-smokers who expect the nany government do it for them. The only time they have a "right" to a smoke free restaurant is if they either open one up, or choose to patronize only those that prohibit the activity. It's really simple.

Some of us -- even this non-smoker who hates the smell of cigarette smoke -- think the mere suggestion of anything resembling any sort of "right" to a smoke-free restaurant dining experience is absolutely ludicrous, bordering on nanny-state insanity.

I don't think there is a such a right, and I have opposed a restaurant smoking ban when it was proposed here. Indeed, private property rights reign supreme, as far as I'm concerned. The fact remains, however, that smokers who persist in smoking around other people when they know there is a likelihood of bothering them are selfish. Smokers frequently want to claim some kind of moral high ground on these issues, when they don't have any. OWNERS of private establishments have the right to allow, prohibit or even require smoking -- that doesn't mean that smoking itself is immune to criticism.