[cinFLA]

So you do suport the right of other hotels and restaurants to cater to those that choose to smoke. In other words, you do support the right of individual businesses to make their own decisions based upon their clientele's preferences.

Yes, as long as society has the ability to conduct business and entertainment in a comfortable atmosphere without the non-smokers having to subsidize the damage and injury caused by smokers. For example, hotels should charge smokers higher rates to cover the increased damage and insurance costs. Non-smokers should not have to pay for the increased ventilation required to clean up the smoke from smokers.

[Protagoras]

Yes, as long as society has the ability to conduct business and entertainment in a comfortable atmosphere without the non-smokers having to subsidize the damage and injury caused by smokers.

So smokers or non smokers could not be excluded by owners of property by their own choice?

[Gabz]

I'm sorry, maybe I'm dense - but your reply seems to contradict itself.

What is wrong with allowing the market to decide how a business owner wishes to deal with smoking? If most of his clientele are smokers, he should be able to serve and entertain them comfortably, which means accomodating their desire to smoke.

"society" has nothing to do with it - it is the best interests of the busines owner that determines many things in the running of the business.

In the end if there is enough call for non-smoking venues business will go that way, others will permit it to accomodate those uncomfortable with non-smoking. I see absolutely no need for government intervention to make EVERTHING non-smoking. Do you?