Right, which goes back to my saying that a private business that caters to a public that wants to patronize it, is not open to the public at large without their [the public] making the decision to enter.
If a sign is not posted that informs of smoking inside, it will be readily apparent once one enters.
And while asbestos might be outlawed, are we really sure that the cure isn't worse than the disease?
We aren't. We can speculate, but only time will tell.
In the final analysis, the number ONE cause of death is: LIFE!
" If a sign is not posted that informs of smoking inside, it will be readily apparent once one enters.
And while asbestos might be outlawed, are we really sure that the cure isn't worse than the disease?"
Well asbestos was effectively regulated more by lawsuit than by just law.
And that's what would eventually happen with smoke - some non-smoking waitress win a suit for emphysema or bronchitis or some rare form of lung cancer that is only caused by tobacco and suddenly everybody who ever worked around smoke but didn't smoke themselves will think they have a case. And non-smokers who ate lunch every day at waffle house will think they have a case.
Not long after that the liability insurance for a restaurant that allows smoking would be astronomical
But I hate legislation by lawsuit so I hope this works out with some kind of rational compromise