That is your right and I support you, as I do others who won't spend $65 for a room that smells. We all vote with our wallets and each niche can be filled. No politicians or lawyers are needed.
"I may not be anti-smoking, but I AM anti-rude jerk"
"Because people like you are the ones who ultimately cause our freedoms to be restricted."
let's dispense with your cute Dan Ratherism next:
you were generally an anti-social jerk"
"proved you to be a liar with your silly attempt to back pedal "
"I demonstrated how you were a hypocrite in your accusations"
"you can't lie or make blatantly hypocrtical statements in your own defensive victimhood"
"Your last resort is to lie, and issue a cute one-liner "
"Who is backing away, beaten down, unable to put together a logical argument"
"Pure bluster, with no basis for it."
" The spreading cancer of the anti-smoking Puritans should be of concern to free men everywhere. As economist Ludwig von Mises cautioned, "Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments."
Aside from the patently hypocritical rant you posted, your argument, as I said, has no merit in a common sense-based debate.
Substitute whatever cause-dujour you choose for the "smoking" rights debate, and you will see that minority opinions have no place in your Utopia. Your interpretation of what others should or should not be allowed to do, is the same philosophy that the Socialist Elitists use to expound on the virtues of Socialism, where only THEY can decide what is proper, permissible, and in furtherance of "the public good". Sorry, Charlie, others enjoy the freedom to choose what to do with our personal lives. Subjecting OTHERS to your interpretation of permissable acts does not foster freedom, nor does it allow for the "consideration for others" that you propound to use as an excuse.
Again, all hat and no cattle is the operative phrase here, and you've proven it with your rant.