Smoking privately is not the same as smoking in a private establishment
It is the same thing. If you own your home would you be ok with the government telling you that you can't smoke, or play loud music? I know I wouldn't, so why should it be different just because you own a business?
This has nothing to do with American law or European law and everything with the basic principle that NOONE, not even a smoker, has the right to harm other people.
And this brings us back to a discussion a while back about personal responsibility. The smoker did not ask you to sit next to them, they did not force you to enter the establishment that allows smoking so you are not being harmed by force but by your own choices. You chose to enter an establishment that allows smoking so you must accept the risk (or consent) that you might inhale smoke
It doesn't matter whether a business owner allows it or not because they never had the right to harm others to begin with.
When it comes to smoking they do, they have a legal right to smoke. If you want to argue smokings legality that is a separate issue.
Can _anybody_ explain why smokers should be treated differently from other people? Why do they have this weird privilege, where they are allowed to harm other people and where an attempt to prohibit that becomes an issue of "private establishment" vs "privately"?
They don't have any extra rights. You have the same right to smoke, and harm others as you say, that they do. It becomes an issue of "private establishment" when you attempt to force a privately owned business to prohibit an otherwise legal activity.
No, I don't. I might merely realise that I will have to undergo certain discomfort for the sake of whatever else it is I really want. But that doesn't mean that I would, for example, start throwing bottles at people and then complain that they obviously agreed to me doing that to them because otherwise they wouldn't have come into that same place. (Plus, the land lord didn't put up a sign prohibiting throwing bottles at people.)
Sorry but that's giving consent. If you are aware that you may inhale smoke by entering a certain building then you are consenting to the possiblity. If you don't want to inhale the smoke then go elsewhere that doesn't allow smoking. The throwing bottles analogy doesn't work here because it would fall into the assault and/or battery category which is already a crime, smoking is not. Here is where the loud music analogy works best.
I don't accept that.
I believe that from the beginning, before anything else even comes into it, other people, including smokers, have no right to harm me. There is NOTHING that can give them the right.
Then you are the one who is claiming more rights than others. You are negating the right of the owner to set his/her own rules for their establishment. You can't walk into a book store and start screaming just because you feel you have the right to do so, the owner will throw you out because they don't want that type of behavior in their establishment. In a bar or restaurant where the owner allows smoking you give your consent that you may inhale smoke by entering the building. The owner sets the rules as long as they are abiding by the laws of the land in the process.
When I walk into ANY public place or place of business I DEMAND that I not be attacked or otherwise harmed by people in that place, REGARDLESS of the will of the owner of the place.
The owner has no say over that because the laws dictate that people aren't allowed to attack you.
People have neither the right to shoot me, nor to throw bottles at me, nor to smoke next to me. And that's how it starts.
Your first two are correct, the law of the land says that people don't have the right to shoot you or throw bottles at you, the third one the government allows so the people do have a right to smoke next to you if the owner of the establishment allows it.
I do believe that the state has the right to regulate safety in a factory.
In general most safety violations do not get a business shut down, they are merely fined for the violation, ie "money talks". Over the years businesses and workers have come to the conclusion that certain safety regulations are in their best interest for the survivablity of the business. The same is not said for smoking, yet.
I refuse to have to pick between different restaurants based on which particular violation of my rights I am willing to endure, just because "money talks" and there might be a majority in the market that make the market shift against me.
Then you must accept the consequences of your actions. You are choosing not to let your money talk for you, that's your problem, not mine.
The market is an excellent mechanism for all sorts of things, but it's not a good mechanism for determining which rights individuals should have.
I disagree. The market is the perfect place to sort these types of things out. If you make choices of which businesses you will spend your money in and you convince your friends and relatives to do the same then the market will shift.