Come to New Zealand, where "you can marry a fag but you can't smoke one"

[Alan]

Lan Barnes wrote:
> 
> In my opinion, legitimate health concerns in public restaurants justify
> the intervention of the state ... and a couple of hundred years of case
> law have agreed, with health codes, etc. 

I don't deny the state's right to intervene, and in most things 
pertaining to restaurants I agree with the state.
But on this issue, I think they went too far.
As an example, up here in OR, we have _many_ farmers markets, bake sales 
etc.
All homemade goods vendors are required to put up a sign that 
says(essentially) "This food was not made in a commercial, inspected 
kitchen. Consume at your own risk".
Seems to me that if a bar could put up a sign that says "Caution, 
smokers inside. Enter at your own risk", that ought to be good enough.
It's a decent compromise that respects the bar owner as well as the 
non-smoker.

  You can't exclude people from
> your restaurant because you, the owner, don't like their race or
> religion. You can't beat people up in your home, even though you own it
> and really really want to. 
Personally, I think I ought to be able to, but that's a whole 'nother 
issue. heh.

> 
> And BTW, I suspect a lot of restaurant owners were just as happy to see
> those laws passed. They didn't have to be the bad guys, and they don't
> have to put up with the damage, the cleaning, the complaints ...
> 
Certainly the predicted death of the bar industry didn't happen.
I suppose the lure of alchohol is stronger than the lure of tobacco.
There's a sociology Ph.D. thesis in there somewhere. heh.
-ajb