Only hidden dangers can be regulated? So if a restaurant put up a sign that said “Our food may contain harmful bacteria; eat at your own risk”, would it then be o.k.? What about the above-cited example of fire extinguishers and fire exits. Is it o.k. not to have those things? After all, by your reasoning, one could eyeball a room and see that there are no fire extinguishers or fire exits and then make an informed decision not to patronize that establishment. Since the danger is not hidden in that case, one could say that people who go there are voluntarily choosing to risk death in a fire, and so the government can’t intrude. And then the “free market” will ensure that fire-safe establishments will exist as long as there is a demand for them, right?
While we’re all on the analogy wagon, here’s one for the employees of smokey bars and clubs:
Bannings smoking in bars and clubs is akin to imposing health and safety requirements on mine sites. Just as the state protects the health of mine workers by requiring their employees to obey certain standards, so too may it protect bar workers.
The argument, “government intervention is unnecessary because bar employees are free to go work at a non-smoking bar operator”, is analogous to, “mine safety regulation is unnecessary; miners can go work at a safer site”. It’s untenable.
That aside, I agree with blowero and Urban Ranger.
I can’t help but 
at your last line, because I’m confident the free market is a factor in fire safety. If your bar burns down and kills a hundred people, it’s bloody bad for business.
I’m not willing to leave everything to the free market, so I favor imposing some floor to what businesses and manufacturers can do to the public and their employees. Most people wouldn’t go to a bar they thought would burn down, but it’s impossible to predict when a fire is going to break out and how large the blaze will get. Most people wouldn’t eat a hamburger they knew would make them sick. By contrast, again, people know that bars and clubs allow smoking, and can plan accordingly.
Jimmy1 (or other lawyers):
What legal argument stops the gov’t from regulating smoking in private homes where children live?
Exactly my point. The “free market” does not automatically take care of everything; the government is well within its rights to, and frequently does, regulate what businesses can and can not do with their establishments. So the argument, “It’s a private business so the gov’t can’t tell them what to do”, is not a valid one. Tell me what part of the U.S. Constitution (or any state constitution) protects your right to smoke cigarettes in public.
Actually, yes, sort of…
Most sushi restaurants have a sign up saying something basically similar, and any restaurant where you might order your eggs over-easy or your T-bone rare have those “thoroughly cooking meat reduces the chance of food born illness…” disclaimers. Doesn’t stop you from ordering raw fish or eggs, just warns you of the danger.
But the signs do not exempt them from the heath code. There are very strict requirements on how sushi can be stored & handled. IOW, caveat emptor does not apply.
Just because the government can do a lot of things doesn’t mean it would or should. Just because regulations are fine and dandy and desirable in some circumstances doesn’t mean they’re necessary, sensible or right in all of them.
I find the “show me the law/Constitution” tack tiresome. To satisfy your apparent aim, there is no part of the Constitution or any state constitutions that spell out anyone’s right to smoke in public. It’s merely a quirk of mine that I feel people should be allowed to conduct their own lives in any way they see fit so long as they don’t do harm to others.
It seems as if this an unquestioned assumption for you, but why wouldn’t a free market be able to handle this? It’s not against the laws of physics for a company to start up that offers to accredit resturants by doing the exact same sorts of spot-check health inspections and so on that the government does.
In short, where is the REAL market failure here, as opposed simply to a cultural bias you have about how things happen to be done right now and in the past, when the government has an effective monopoly on resturant health?
You also seem to be agreeing that the government has the right to be purely paternalistic: i.e. protect consumers even when they want to take the risk. But what justifies that way of thinking?
That’s an excellent question.
Or, while driving in a car with the windows rolled up. That one can’t be good for kids.
Maybe, John, it’s a separate question. Or topic for a debate.
That is the beginning and the end of the argument. It is not the function of government to rule on all aspects of life that may be harmful. There is no end to the potential of such regulation. When I entered the workforce you could smoke in the office. The anti-smoking movement originally stated they just wanted smoke out of the office. Then it was airplanes, then parks and now we are up to the house next door.
If a Govt agency wanted to establish some guidelines as to the level of 2nd hand smoke allowed, I would entertain it.
There is a way around the law but it shouldn’t have to happen. You can establish smoking clubs that require membership.
A bar is NOT a public establishment unless it is run by a goverment.
A bar is a privately owned business. It is also not providing the smoke involved. You could say it is a defacto participant by allowing it but, again, it is a private business. Restaraunts are required to have a non-smoking section. They are not required to have a smoking section.
Could be, but I was hoping for a more or less factual answer from one our resident lawyers.
And all of that has absolute nothing to do with what I was saying.
Oh, sorry - I guess you were only referring to my last sentence. My apologies.
Although I disagree with your assessment that smoking at a bar or restaurant is not “smoking in public”, it doesn’t matter for the purpose of my question, so I’ll rephrase it:
Tell me what part of the U.S. Constitution (or any state constitution) protects your right to smoke cigarettes.
“The persuit of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness”?
I don’t know about you, but I know a lot of people who feel a hell of a lot happier after lighting up.
GAH, I screwed that up: “The RIGHT to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.”
It’s early, leave me alone.