>>It's a private property issue. That's the main point.<<
that's a better argument, but i think there is a difference between truly private property and property that is designed to cater to the public as a business and regulated as such.
surely, you do not argue that *all* public safety regulation of restaurants be taken away based on "private property" issue.
you've chosen to draw the line somewhere in the middle in a different place than i.
who put the left wing, totalitarians in office and how did they do that?
by voting?
who's been voted out of office over this issue?
nobody?
do you see the point yet?
they do plenty of lying, manipulation and stupid things, that's for sure. i don't think banning smoking in public establishments is one of them. the broken clock got the time right on this one, as it were.
we already discussed the "choice" of consumers and you failed to list a single restaurant that was non smoking in your "free" environment.
there was no choice between smoking and non smoking restaurants. if you went out, you sucked down 2nd hand smoke. period.
yes, there may be exceptions that we could not list because they are so few, but the rarity of the exceptions proves the rule.
again, you are all for public safety regulation, just the regulation level you want. it isn't freedom vs non freedom, which sounds all nice on the soap box but has little practical application. it is how much freedom to remove in order to protect the general public from things like known carcinogens.
btw, many people LOVE their NEW FREEDOM to dine in healthy environments. despite the proclaimed collapse of the restaurant industry in california, it has boomed with the no smoking laws.
having said that, california legislatures over regulate all kinds of areas in my opinion. they want to ban the use of non hands free cell phone use in vehicles when not a single study indicates hands free cell phone use in cars is less dangerous than holding the phone next to one's ear (as i understand the studies and data).
the problem there is they are regulating something that hasn't been shown to help protect the general public, hence, the regulation is stupid.
also, lots of people are trying to hoist global warming legislation when the planet has cooled over the last decade, something that is never mentioned in polite global warming fraud circles.
no wonder al gore has no problem with a $16k electric bill per month.
again, that's stupid because it doesn't benefit anyone except those who burn the cash hoisted upon them for things like trips to bali to wring their hands and replay the video of the polar bear on the melting ice burg from a few years back. never mind that it has frozen back already...
all rhetoric aside, we just draw the line of public safety regulation in a different place. |
