Replies

"Funny, you just refuse to see that there is any legitimate reason to regulate smoking in public buildings but you have no problem encouraging legislation against some lawyer or other business where your interest lay with regulation."

Do you actually read. I never said that there is no legitimate reason to regulate smoking in public buildings. That hasn't been discussed at all on this thread. In fact, I completely support smoking bans in public buildings. Of course, a public building is owned by the public. It is necessary for any memeber of the public to access that building. It is proper, and expected, that the public can decide the use of that building. The public makes the decisions by electing their representatives, the reps then decide the use of the building.

You seem to think that privately owned buildings are somehow public buildings. Members of the public have access to private buildings, but that is by invitation only and it is not necessary for all members of the public to access that privately owned building. It is proper, and expected that the private property owner decide the use of his building. He is restricted from doing that by the public reps.

How is encrouging a "loser pays" system supporting legislation? It could be accomplished by ways outside of legislation, where did I say legislation was necessary to accomplish it? In addition, your father would most likely have his business improved under your proposal. More people would defend themselves rather than settle. He could also set his fee based on the premium as well as the hourly rate.

The examples I provided were only examples of how the risk free frivolous law suits effect everyone.