[Semolina Pilchard]

An important reminder for everyone who opposes smoking bans:

-- Do not let this be a debate about "the rights of smokers" and "the rights of nonsmokers"

-- Do not let this be a debate about "health issues"

-- Do not let this be a debate about "restaurants losing revenue" and "bars closing down"

-- Do not let this be a debate about the "affects of secondhand smoke on workers"

All of those are red herrings. None of them are relevant AT ALL.

Take care not to get lured into arguments with smoking-ban proponents on these terms. Otherwise you will have allowed them to frame the debate; you will have already ceded vital ground.

This is a debate about property rights. Period. None of the other stuff matters. None of it is relevant. When someone tries to engage you in debate about any of the above issues, just ignore all the superfluous blah-blah-blah, and simply respond by saying, "A smoking ban would violate the rights of property owners. Government is not empowered to violate those rights."

Don't get distracted by all this other stuff, because it has nothing to do with the real issue.

[Calpernia]

I figured that out in post 15.

Bump to your post too.

WHAT do we do about any of this?

How do you battle a blue state of the Select?

[Gabz]

When someone tries to engage you in debate about any of the above issues, just ignore all the superfluous blah-blah-blah, and simply respond by saying, "A smoking ban would violate the rights of property owners. Government is not empowered to violate those rights."

I agree with you - but the proponents have an arguement for that as well.........that with rights come responsibility and some of those responsibilites are restrictions on operating your business.

I kid you not.