Penn & Teller said at TAM! 3 that there was new evidence suggesting second-hand smoking was dangerous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit!#Secondhand_smoke
Anyway, I disagree with your argument that privately owned restaurants should be able to offer smoking facilities. A restaurant is there to provide food. If it allows smoking then it is impeding on the liberties of the non-smoking public. Which is the better outcome? That smokers are told to go outside (or even to a separate room), or non-smokers are told to go find another restaurant? Smoking isn't the norm, and it is quite clear that smoking is a choice that affects personal liberties of other people. Putting a dangerous choice above that of the default non-smoking position is simply ludicrous when it comes to restaurants.
Now I would agree on some kind of smoking establishment, but in all honesty I think most would prefer to step outside for a smoke rather than go to somewhere like that.
Anyway, I disagree with your argument that privately owned restaurants should be able to offer smoking facilities. A restaurant is there to provide food. If it allows smoking then it is impeding on the liberties of the non-smoking public. Which is the better outcome? That smokers are told to go outside (or even to a separate room), or non-smokers are told to go find another restaurant? Smoking isn't the norm, and it is quite clear that smoking is a choice that affects personal liberties of other people. Putting a dangerous choice above that of the default non-smoking position is simply ludicrous when it comes to restaurants.
Now I would agree on some kind of smoking establishment, but in all honesty I think most would prefer to step outside for a smoke rather than go to somewhere like that.
