TexanAvenger

School is a publically funded state institution where the majority of the population therein can't drink anyway because they're underage. A restaurant or the like is a privately owned business that may or may not have objections to patrons smoking indoors. They're not equivalent.

As for the OP: There is no questioning that people make judgements about others. It's an inherent design flaw in the beautiful machinery that is the mind. I truly can't bring myself to believe that anybody can really go around with complete impartiality to those around them.

That being said, the imposition of one's morals onto another is the line at which I cannot fully back the OP, politicophile. While I, somewhat begrudgingly, admit that society needs rules, and that many of them are based in moral philosophy and doctrine, there came a line a long time ago at which society passed creating necessary rules to rules that did things like ban smoking in public places.

Using smoking as an example, as that seems to be the issue this revolves around, comes back to my statement that private properties are owned by people who may or may not have objections to their patrons lighting one up indoors. Should the decision not be made by the establishment to decide the matter as they are the ones who will have to deal with the repercussions? If you don't like the smoke and the restaurant allows it, you can then decide whether it is worth it to you to continue eating there.

Or look at it this way. There are many cases in which the federal government has doled out responsibilty to the states to make a decision on moral matters because making a blanket moral doctrine across that large an area simply cannot last due to differing opinions on the matter. And look around, even moving implication to the state level causes many problems.

Stated in short, moral implication is not necessary, at least not to the point it is carried out, because it causes unrest and anger in the individual.