From: john@jfeldredge.com   
      
   On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:37:01 -0700, David Friedman wrote:   
      
   > In article ,   
   >  "J. Clarke"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> > And while one can argue about the medical effects of second hand   
   >> > smoke, the unpleasantness for non-smokers is unambiguous.   
   >>   
   >> It's basically an excuse for do-gooders to impose their will on others.   
   >>   
   >>   
   > Either way you get some imposing of will.   
   >   
   > The right answer, in my view, is freedom of contract. A restaurant   
   > should be free to be non-smoking if it wants, but not required to be.   
   > Similarly for any other private facility.   
      
   The compromise that was reached here in Tennessee (USA) is that   
   businesses with three or fewer employees, and businesses who enforce a no-   
   customers-under-21 policy, are allowed to choose to be smoking or non-   
   smoking.  All others are required by state law to be non-smoking.  The no-   
   one-under-21 policy means, among other things, that stand-alone bars can   
   allow smoking, but most restaurants are non-smoking (even if they serve   
   liquor).  Most restaurants prefer to cater to families as well as adults   
   unaccompanied by children.   
      
   --   
   John F. Eldredge -- john@jfeldredge.com   
   PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu   
   "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better   
   than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)