[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.]
You are only emphasizing my point that the Democrats could rip the Republicans a new one if they did decide to drop the anti-war nonsense and replace it with something wildly popular like anti-smoking laws. The fact that you hate smoking but are willing to go to bat for smokers...shows only that you would apparently stand on the ship as it goes into battle and go down with it.
Your advice would lead a naive candidate to "stick up for the constitution" which, by the way, is something you see at DailyKOS every day (the leftists always show photos of the constitution on their pathetic websites).
The younger Republicans will not follow you here.
For the newer generations, smoking is considered a disgusting imposition on others, like assault.
There is no constitutional right for a bar owner to allow some of their customers to assault other customers.
Besides, all studies show that, wherever food and drink is served, food and drink sales revenues go way up when smoking is banned.
Cigarettes are an appetite suppressant. Bar-owners are cutting their revenue off by allowing smoking.
Check out Smoke Free Seattle to see what Republican voters helped pass recently in Washington State.
The vote, 3 months ago, was 63% statewide in favor of banning smoking in all "workplaces"...to protect employees (it is unfair to say that some jobs, like waitressing or bartending, should only be for those who are willing to breathe smoke-this can directly impoverish someone in that profession who finally decides that he or she can't stand smoke but still needs to earn a living).
We all know that Republicans and Democrats were 50:50 in Seattle for the election of the governor. But it was 63:37 in favor of banning smoking in every business including bars and casinos with no exceptions.
Obviously, in addition to the 27% of male smokers in Washington who are "presumed" to have voted against the Washington Clean Air Act...there may have been an additional 10% of socalled "conservatives" who voted with them based on the momentum of thinking it was a "conservative cause".
But apparently 26% of Republicans completely abandoned their fellow "conservatives" on the smoking issue.
In terms of a federal law proposal...it could spell disaster to Republicans if the Democrats were intelligent enough to use a popular cause like anti-smoking instead of a treasonous cause like anti-war.
Because you could count on 26% of Republicans, especially the women and younger people, abandoning anyone who pretends that smoking is a human right protected by any constitution. Defending nicotine while condemning marijuana is, in addition, seen by the new generation as outrageously hypocritical.
Again, it doesn't matter how I feel: the statistics are there to show you that this is not a fight Republicans want to be on the wrong side of.
If the Democrats had any brains, they would be thinking of other topics besides their treason in the WOT.
I already agreed it *may* work in some states, but will fail once it gets to the Supremes. Unless they find a new way to extend the commerce clause.
Remember the old saying...all elections are local. Making a smoking ban a national issue won't fly. But making it a democrat issue at the local level may work in many localities.
I think we'll have to disagree on what's best for the party of the RAT.