I was talking about the Democrats pushing for abortion term limits as a pro-active move against the inevitable roll-back of Roe vs Wade (and I wasn't stating my position for or against abortion by saying this). I wasn't talking about politician term limits. :-)
[...I hate smoking; however, I don't think it's fair to pass a law telling a business owner what they can or can't do with their business.]
Yes you can. This is a no-brainer even in red states. There is 70% support for telling bar owners that they cannot allow their customers to smoke in the bar. The public sees smoking cigarettes like it sees drug taking or lapdancing...something that can be regulated as a behavior. Actually...there are probably more Americans in favor of allowing business owners to allow lapdancing than to allow smoking.
Nobody should have the right to come up to me in a bar and blow smoke in my face. Yet, that is basically what smokers have been doing to people for far too long. The game is now over in much of the world and soon the entire USA.
This really is a no-brainer and the Democrats are stark raving stupid for not capitalizing on such an issue where they would cakewalk to victory...as opposed to being anti-war traitors.
The country needs another viable political party. It is a total disgrace that the Democrats have abandoned reason on the War on Terror. They need to find a topic where the people will agree with them...and something with bottom-line 70% support will help.
Other countries are supporting the USA in the WOT. We still have most of our allies and Denmark and Germany and Portugal are now as right wing as ever since 9-11.
So it IS actually appropriate to note that the huge tidal wave of anti-smoking legislation that is hitting the rest of the world is NOT a symptom of over liberalization that American conservatives must resist.
Scotland, Sweden, Spain and Belgium just passed comprehensive anti-smoking laws. Sure, you can say that they have all liberal governments now. But the point is that part of the reason they DO have liberal governments is because their liberal politicians concentrated on anti-smoking laws in their campaigns (not on being against the American President). Now that the people have what they want in terms of fresh air, they can go back to voting conservative again in the future. No anti-smoking law will ever be overturned anywhere once it is enacted. This is because it isn't really "conservative" to favor a small special interest group like smokers.
In Scotland starting in the middle of March, it will be illegal to light a cigarette in any pub. It turns out that conservative politicians in Scotland and Spain were partly butchered politically precisely because the liberal candidates made a very big deal about smoking.
So whether you or I agree with anti-smoking laws or not (and I most emphatically do agree), I am still pointing out that politicians can get trounced at the polls if they try to take up a flimsy "let business owners do what they want" tactic, which is a lie because they cannot allow gambling or nudity or drugs or hand-dishwashing already.
Plus...smokers in Sweden and Ireland are now saying that they are overwhelmingly in FAVOR of being able to eat in restaurants without the smoke of OTHERS to bother them.
A Democrat could run in Alabama saying "I agree with my Republican opponent on everything except smoking" and win.
I believe the constitution says otherwise. What you outlined is an argument for local and state elected officials. But nationally they can't pass a smoking ban. They could regulate tobacco as an illegal product at the national level, but nothing else. To do so would be a disgrace to the constitution. I'm all for allowing states to do what they want.