Haha. Smokers OWNED by Mankato

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Such a wonderful topic!

It exposes the problems with both unrestricted libertarianism and statism.

The problem with the libertarian position is that it assumes people are able to be fully informed so as to make a rational choice about the risks/costs/benefits of being exposed to second hand smoke.  However, this neglects the cost of acquiring such information and the difficulties most people have in accurately assessing risks, although the second point can be ignored if one assumes that the skill of accurate risk assessment is merely a comparative marketplace advantage that the government should not interfere with.

The problem with the statist position is, if one is going to ban public smoking, why not go to the next logical step of banning private smoking?

Let's consider a third way.  In theory at least, one can assess the economic harm done by second-hand smoke in public venues.  (The accuracy of that assessment is subject to debate, but that it could be done is not.)  Then the solution is simple, tax business owners who allowing smoking in their facilities at a sufficient rate to compensate society for the harm done by the second-hand smoke.  This ensures that those who allow the harm of second-hand smoke to occur to have to pay for the harm done, while freeing individuals from each having to expend the effort necessary to calculate that harm for themselves.  (That's the main value of government, it allows for collective actions to be undertaken at a lower cost than the sum of all the individual actions it replaces.) The main problem with this approach is that it is hopelessly complicated, especially if the tax level is constanty subject to adjustment to refelect the estimated costs, but rounding up to a higher value does simplify things and provides the justification for sin taxes.

So that's my idea, no ban, but a tax based on the seating capacity of a public venue that is imposed if the business owner allows smoking.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Impossible to calculate, and could probably be solved by tort anyways.

Definitely not solvable by tort as the legal costs would be disproportionate unless one resorts to class action, and even then just simply dealing it with taxes would be cheaper.  The "redress all harm by torts theory" breaks down when an action causes a small amount of harm to a large number of people because the cost of the tort becomes impractical.  In the case of second-hand smoke, it might be possible to deal with the damage done to employees via tort, but not that done to customers and the damage done to the customers will be far greater.