I used to use Gekko's debating ploy when I was 12: "You're stupid!"

Let me try this one more time (with little hope of making a dent):

The issue isn't "smokers' rights" either. Here's what it boils down to.

I own a business. I choose to allow or deny the behavior of my patrons, so long as that choice
-- isn't based on race, religion, gender, etc., and
-- doesn't violate the law.
Now, if you're going to argue "Well, then, we'll just make a law against smoking," that's where the debate begins: Is such a law equitable?

How about a law that bans people who have the flu? Don't I have a right to be protected from people who carry contagious diseases? Or do I have to tolerate their coughing in my face and infecting me?

Again, just so I'm not again charged of dancing with devil by people like budget, I do not smoke and I do not go to places that allow smoking. That's not the issue, either. It's whether we can tell business owners what to do AND make them responsible for enforcement.

"We the People" can demand the law, and because no immutable characteristics are implicated, the law by definition is "equitable."

I learned that in law school.

And stupid is as stupid does -- like smoking or defending the right of smokers to poison others.

<"" own a business. I choose to allow or deny the behavior of my patrons, so long as that choice
-- isn't based on race, religion, gender, etc., and
-- doesn't violate the law.
Now, if you're going to argue "Well, then, we'll just make a law against smoking," that's where the debate begins: Is such a law equitable?"">

You can do anything you want with your business, you can discriminate against race, religion, gender, and sexual preference and you aren't breaking the law. Only in terms of employment do the above count.

You second point is moot. Non-smoking is already against the law in many places so it doesn't matter.

Ohhhhhh ain't nuttin worse than an ugly, fat person smoking in the next chair. Lordy lordy!

Well, Go, maybe where you live business owners can refuse service based on race, etc., but not where I live.

And, sorry, the point is not moot. There are many, many places where smoking in bars and restaurants is not against the law.

Yep, you sure can refuse anyone you want for any reason you want.

Doesn't mean you'll stay in business but that is your right as a business owner.

Go Travel, that is amazing. So you're saying a business owner can't be charged with anything if he says to a person, "hey, you can't come in here because you're black and I don't allow (insert the n word here)?"

I may be ignorant, but I can't believe it is really legal to do that!

No, you certainly can't tell someone you refuse to serve them because they have on a purple shirt but you can not serve them.

It would be impossible to prove why someone would not wait on you/serve you etc.

"It would be impossible to prove why someone would not wait on you/serve you etc."

Hmmm, all the successful lawsuits and out of court settlements by a number of restaurants including well known ones would seem to refute that idea.

google "immutable characteristics"

the legal distinction between acceptable and unacceptable "discrimination"

being a smoker is not an immutable characteristic, nor is wearing a purple shirt ... race is, however ...

Who said that people don't have the right to kill themselves? People make poor health choices and engage in risky behavior all the time. You going to stop them?

As far as killing others, I'm wondering how many deaths of innocents can legitimately attributed to second-hand smoke compared to those that can be blamed on drunk drivers. Yet where is the outcry to crack down on drunk driving? If we forced restaurants and bars to stop selling booze, people would have to stay home and do their drinking and there would be fewer drunks on the highways. Or we could outlaw alcohol altogether.

And where is the law that prevents people from buying fast food for their kids? We have a nation of fat kids with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and poor exercise habits. Maybe we need a law forcing people to parent properly.

I wish people would stop smoking; everyone knows it's not healthy. But I don't like the government enforcement approach. Today it's smoking - tomorrow it will be something near and dear to you.

According to the Surgeon General, second-hand smoke killed 49,000 Americans in 2005. "No debate."

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

Driving drunk is illegal everywhere. So should be poisoning people with tobacco smoke.

"Impossible to prove ..."

The three words every lawyer loves to hear (see Denny's and Cracker Barrel).

"Yet where is the outcry to crack down on drunk driving?"

Huh? Where do you live?

BJbooth,

Do you live under a rock?

"Yet where is the outcry to crack down on drunk driving? "

Have you ever heard of MADD. There is a huge, loud, outcry against drunk driving. There are extremely harsh penalties against drunk driving.

And for the umpteenth time it is not about people killing themselves it is about people killing others with secondhand smoke. If someone wants to kill themselves by smoking then I say have at it. Just don't kill me in the process. And yes there is irreputible proof that secondhand smoke kills.

You have lost all credibility with your innane rantings.

I've had 3 musician friends this year diagnosed with cancer, one with heart disease. Workers suffer tremendously. In Louisville, where we finally got our ban, the restaurants are trying to sue.
http://www.tobacco.org/news/236113.html

Idiots. Wish we had Denny Crain representing them. ;-)

I've seen signs that say something to the effect "we reserve the right to refuse service . . ."

Also a place of business can kick you out for reasons that aren't against the law. There are probably a few threads here about a manager asking a customer to leave with the screaming kids or get rid of the cell phone.

I'll say it one more time:

Google "immutable characteristics"

A club, for example, can deny entry to someone who is not dressed "properly," because dress is not immutable, like race or age or sex.

I took a look at the Surgeon General's report. Couldn't find the reference to 45k deaths caused by secondhand smoke, so I'll take your word for it, though I wonder about the methodology. Wouldn't you have to autopsy every person to determine that 2d-hand smoke was the cause of death?

Anyway, the SG report seems to place a lot of emphasis on the effect of 2d-smoke on children, which leads to a question: Instead of worrying about bars and restaurants, shouldn't we be more concerned about smoking in homes and cars that have children in them?

I mean, adults have choices about their environment and whether to be exposed to smoke, but kids don't.

BTW, the SG has coined an interesting term for the breathing-in of 2d-hand smoke: "involuntary smoking."

j 999,

You are 100% correct. smoking in a house/car with a child should be a crime. But if smokers are resistant to smoking bans in restaurants/bars imagine the furor if they could not smoke in their home/cars. smoking in an enclosed vehicle with a child is nothing short of child abuse and should be treated as such.