Dan Carroll writes:
For the most part, I'm with you. What I don't understand, though, is why a lot of people feel there can't be, for instance, a smoking movie theater. If the understanding before you go in is that one of the services available at the theater is the ability to smoke, what's the harm? Don't go there if you don't want a room full of smoke!
I'm not saying there shouldn't be non-smoking theaters as well. Far from it. I'm just wondering why it's an all or nothing proposition. As I've been saying throughout this thread, if there's really enough adamant demand for non-smoking businesses, what the Hell do we need a law for?
I think the legislators view the existence of second-hand smoke in closed public areas as a health risk which can be compared to the danger of not wearing a seatbelt when riding in a car. The benefits to the constituents of legislating penalties for failure to perform a certain way are veiwed as overwhelming enough to justify the reduction of individual freedom.
Not that I necessarily agree with that reasoning, but I imagine that their reasoning somewhat resembles it.
Blessings,
::
™ Version 4.2
