[pavlov]

30 years ago everyone had the freedom to choose between restaurants that allow smoking and those that don’t — except that no businesses wanted to provide the latter. Without government intervention we’d still be wading through cigarette smoke in bars.

Facebook’s reckless use of private data is a public hazard not unlike passive smoking. It’s not going to be solved by an asymmetric fake free market where customers are free to choose an option that doesn’t exist.

[perl4ever]

Are you referring to Germany or the US?

In my recollection, in the US, 30 years ago restaurants had "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections. And non-smokers sometimes complained bitterly about smoke wafting into the "non-smoking" section. Which in fact led to some restaurants being all non-smoking before government intervention. The NY statewide ban on smoking in workplaces was only passed 15 years ago.

I don't know about bars 30 years ago, though. Because drinking has always been considered a "vice", I think people tended to group it with smoking and think if you're going to tolerate one, why not the other.

[fnordian_slip]

Pretty sure the parent comment is talking about Germany.

Smoking bans in restaurants and bars have made a significant difference in most states.

If I remember correctly, we had a non-binding agreement between the health ministry and our national restaurant and hotel organisation at first, but this did not change much.

Even most smokers I know agree that the laws were necessary, and that they are thankful for them because otherwise they would not go outside to smoke.

[perl4ever]

Ok, however the context of this thread is the intersection of a multi-national American business with European courts, so basing one's opinion on the German experience exclusively to claim the obvious necessity of regulation is a bit German-centric.