...
The alcohol licensing is for much more than revenue, to take that specific. There are all sorts of regulations of who can have one, where it is located, etc.
As for employees, the state has an absolute right to pass laws to protect workers. Now if you challenge that, we are back in the 17th century and I don't care to go there.
Let's see...I did not say solely for revenue, did I, but primarily for it. And nothing you have offered here dispels that, much less does it in any way illuminate your claim as to a duty to protect workers and patrons from secondary smoke. I believe that the historical record of safety laws is spotty and often ineffective - otherwise there would have been little need for OSHA/MSHA. Also, the doctrine of assumed risk has applied to defend the employer from the arbitrary and impossible burden of absolute safety.
But still you make no valid point for why a placed licensed to dispense alcohol is somehow transfigured into one that must protect people from their own knowing and presumptively willful acceptance of the risk - especially of patrons who voluntarily enter therein and who are presumptively aware that smoking is going to happen and they are going to be exposed to second-hand smoke.
To repeat what Issodhos has said before, you have yet to make a principled point in defense of your assumed arbitrary right to dictate to a bar/restaurant owner, who deals with patrons who voluntarily enter - not required, not compelled - and who offers hire to persons who knowingly seek the job and presumptively understand what goes on therein, that he may not permit/forbid the smoking of tobacco solely on his own determination.
Lastly, I would still like you to answer my previous parallel question - would that the same presumed duty under alcohol licensing to protect patrons and employees from second-hand smoke extend to protecting them from exposure to trans fats.
