Replies

At the expense of the property rights of the owner of the resturant. You seem to delight in trampling on their rights. Care to tell us why?...

Any business owner (and I am one) who does business with the public surrenders certain "property rights" for the privilege of "public" business. Among these "surrendered rights" are the right keep unsanitary food storage and preparation areas, to keep fire hazards, to refuse service to patrons because of race, to refuse keep accurate books, etc.

The government of the people, by the people and for the people has the the right through their freely elected representatives to set reasonable restrictions upon property rights of anyone who holds himself or herself out as doing business with the public. The Bill of Rights clearly delienates those protections of individual and property rights which are inviolate. All others are subject to legal restriction.

If this is "trampling rights" in your opinion, your concept needs some modification. Until, and unless, you get an admendment to the Constitution passed, you will have to live with the current system.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I'll reiterate, private property should not be taken for public use, without just compensation. Now, how does a smoking ban constitute "public use" and where does it offer just compensation?

Since the government imposed the ban, that hurt the business, should the government also pass legislation demanding that all residents of that jurisdiction also be required to patronize an assigned business on specific days?

It is not the smoker, nor the non-smoker, that is hurting the business person. It is the gullible politician catering to the anti-smoking lobby which is funded by tobacco taxation and fraudulent law suits.