&quot;I&#x27;m no conspiriacy theorist, but ... anti-smoking laws are actually being used to limit the plebs ability to congregate together and discuss issues&quot;<p>Smoking bans have not pushed people away from pubs, bars, etc. For example, see <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;eurpub.oxfordjournals.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;18&#x2F;1&#x2F;63.abstract" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;eurpub.oxfordjournals.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;18&#x2F;1&#x2F;63.abstract</a> :<p>&gt; Some were concerned [comprehensive smoke-free regulations in Ireland] would cause pub patrons to move their smoking and drinking from inside pubs to inside homes. ... Conclusions: Smoking and drinking in the home was not greater in smoke-free Ireland than in the United Kingdom, where there was not a smoke-free law at the time of the survey. These findings add further support to the enactment of comprehensive smoke-free laws, as called for in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.&quot;<p>and at-home smoking rates in England went down after anti-smoking laws went into place ( <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bmj.com&#x2F;content&#x2F;331&#x2F;7509&#x2F;129.3.full" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bmj.com&#x2F;content&#x2F;331&#x2F;7509&#x2F;129.3.full</a> ) so it&#x27;s not like more people stayed at home to smoke.<p>Moreover, the underlying premise of Starbucks was to be a &quot;third place&quot; to congregate. Who would spend all the political capital to push pro-plebe isolation laws when they are so easily circumvented by someone out to make a profit?<p>For that matter, <i>cars</i> isolate us far more than DUI and anti-smoking laws. A walking neighborhood with its own local bars, parks, and businesses (instead of zoning purity) reduce isolation. And you can&#x27;t arrested for DUI if you&#x27;re walking home from the bar.<p>As to your main topic - I quite disagree, but that isn&#x27;t a topic I want to discuss.