But this is great in theory, but impossible in practice.
Before smoking bans there were very few non-smoking facilities. There were, however, a mishmash of smoking sections. Some places even put them in the front where non-smokers had to wade through the foul air to get to the non-smoking section.
The rights and health of non-smokers has to come first. We're all born non-smokers -- those who choose to take it up are altering their default behavior and if it requires a little more inconvenience, it should not be a problem.
I respect that we will disagree on this issue -- but my main goal is simply to point out the fact that it's not a liberal issue -- Rush is 100% wrong on that (blinded because he's a smoker I presume). It is an issue that crosses ideological lines, as I've proven with the abortion issue.
I have to admit that it wouldn't bother me if there were zero nonsmoking facilities. Until there is good evidence that a single dining experience can endanger a nonsmoker, I just don't see where the government gets off telling private business owners what services they can offer. It makes sense that someone who repeatedly dines in the company of smokers might take on some kind of risk. But shouldn't we then outlaw open air stadiums? The fair-skinned are at risk of skin cancer due to the selfish desires of the sun-worshippers.
By the way I am a nonsmoker who can't stand being around the stuff. I won't eat in a smoky place and suffered on many a plane flight before the laws were passed.
I agree favoring smoking laws doesn't automatically make one a liberal.