|

The problem is that alcohol and obesity are different. As long as no one is driving, alcohol generall doesn't cause harm to those around if you if you drink (apart from the occasional brawl).
It's the same with obesity. My obesity doesn't give you diabetes.

Smoking is different. Secondhand smoke is the problem. If you could smoke without the smoke wandering around the room and not bothering anybody, I'd say go for it. But that's not possible.

All things being equal, we should all be able to eat in the same place. The problem is smoking can actually cause physical harm to people not participating in the activity. It's a passive thing. Just by breathing in the same confined space with a smoker, you increase the risk of cancer signficantly.

While the argument is certainly out there that people can go where the want to eat, one must look out for the welfare of the employees too. If non-smoker gets a job at a smoking establishment, it could be a problem. If the non-smoker doesn't mind, fine, but if they do and really need the job, then is it fair for them to have to put their life at risk against their will? I suppose there's always choice once again. In the end, no one physically causes you harm by requiring you not to smoke for the hour or so at a restaurant. Smokers actually cause physical harm to others.

As far as a right to smoke, you can smoke in your home, your automobile, outside in the open air. It's simple. As far as rights, I have a right to carry a firearm but most restaurants won't let you in if you're openly displaying one. And that right is outlined in the constitution.