OK, then a simple, very simple question.
How can the smoker's "right" to smoke in public be considered even remotely equal to or greater than non-smoker's right to be free of the nuisance? Especially since, if the non-smokers prevail, everyone is better off, while if the smokers prevail, everyone is worse off?
I grew up with the idea that a persons "rights" end where someone else's start. The smoker has not lost anything by not smoking for the few minutes he is in a restaurant. He can wait until after eating, or walk outside during the meal to smoke. The non-smoker has no such choice, and accumulates the second hand smoke so that the smoker is not made to suffer even minor inconvenience.
The idea that there is a public sphere which should not be defiled, polluted, or otherwise taken advantage of has been completely lost. The best example of this is people who litter, thinking either that they or not hurting anyone, or that their "right" not to transport their litter to an appropriate receptacle is more important than other peoples' right to pleasant surroundings.
I will also add that in a down economy, the economy itself in fact forces people to work in non-smoking environments, due to lack of options. Those who elect to put long term health over short term benefits are commonly labeled slackers, by people who think it is perfectly reasonable to shaft the people at the bottom of the economic heap.
[ May 26, 2004, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: TooManyWheels ]