RW>It has always been that simple.  You don't like a
  >business you hit the street.
RT> Actually Rich, I have to partially agree with you here.  I
RT> believe a man should be able to conduct his business as he
RT> sees fit.  Now do we apply the same logic to all aspects of
RT> the restaurant business.  Lets let the workers wash their
RT> hands IF they want to.  Lets allow the owner to spend less
RT> money on sanitation, refrigeration, and food preservation
RT> issues. Lets allow the workers to use their hands to handle
RT> food.  Lets don't worry about bacterial levels in food.  And
RT> lets don't place any standard on the types of food served,
RT> the conditions they are prepared in, and the sources from
RT> which they are derived.  Lets let the customers decide
RT> whether or not the place is worthy of their patronage.
Ok fine.  You never walk out of a restart because you
didn't like the way it looked?
The civil court system would take care of most if not
all of the problems you site.  After the first case of
anything the suits would start.  Look at how Jack-in-
the-box changed its cooking process and how it changed
the cooking process in every other restart. 
The government can set all the rules and make all the
laws it wants but they do no good is people/business
don't want to follow them. 
Every week a local news program does a segment called
"Eat, drank and be weary" where they list the high and
low scoring restaurant.  And every week there are at
least three restaurant that fail their inspection.  And
yet people continue to go into these restaurant and
assume that it is safe because there are rules about
food handling.  Now are the rules helping or hurting?
Now if the people knew that it was up to them to take
care of themselves they might take the time to look
around before they sit down to eat.
RW>RT> There are VERY few smoke free restaurants.  When there is
  >RT> one available, I will patronize it.
RW>Doesn't this show you that most people aren't concerned
  >about smokers?  After all if there was a huge chuck of
  >people out there who didn't want to be around smoke
  >there would be smoke free everything on every corner.
RT> Look very closely Rich.  Every day there are more and more
RT> people who are waking up to the fact that they ARE
Then why isn't there smoke free restaurant popping up
every day?  Heck if there is such a ground swell maybe
I should cash in some of my mutual funds and start a
smoke free restaurant.
RT> uncomfortable breathing tobacco smoke.  They ARE worried
RT> about the adverse health problems associated with tobacco
No they are doing the new American thing, they are
letting the government and "they" think for them.  If
they are worried about it then don't use it.  I don't.
I also don't use alcohol, crack, meth.  If I don't like
a place because of the way it looks or smells I don't
stay.  I am also not a vegetarian nor eat organic
foods.  All of these are chooses I make and you nor
anyone else has the right to tell me that they are
wrong unless they are effecting you in a way YOU can't
control.
RT> smoke.  AND they ARE letting their pocket books and their
RT> feet speak... They (we) are having to fight an uphill battle
RT> because of the long ingrained idea that we should be
RT> "tolerant".  Keep looking... you will find that sooner or
RT> later, there WILL be smoke free everything on every corner. 
RT> Its a hard battle, but we are winning.
And then what?  Alcohol free.  Meat free?  Chemical
fertilizer free?
RT> Once we have strict laws governing tobacco usage in public
RT> areas, the private sector will soon conform.  We won't have
RT> to regulate it because the then wary public will demand the
RT> same from them.
But this isn't the plan.  The plan is to force every
place that has someone other then smoker to forbid
smoking.  Public, private and in between (businesses)
                      Remember:  Freedom isn't Free!
--- timEd-B11
---------------