They can! Only about 20% of Americans smoke. Therefore, there are several successful restaurants who choose to ban smoking on their premesis even in states that allow restaurants to make their own smoking policy. There are also successful establishments that choose to cater to the smoking/don't mind the smoke crowd.
Doing things my way, smokers, non-smokers, people who don't care, and business owners all benefit. Doing it your way, the only people who benefit are non-smokers. Please explain why your way is more logical.
I just finished reading the entire thread and everyone's comments. Let me see if I got this all straight (it's all a little confusing when you combine two notoriously volatile subjects like Rudy and smoke Nazis on FR). Please help me out if I got any of your various positions wrong:
* TitansAFC, pissant, EternalVigilance and Charles are anti-Rudy, anti-nanny state and want everyone here to think that Rudy is a nanny stater so they will not support him and support their candidate instead
* I am leaning towards Rudy, anti nanny state, and know for a fact that Rudy is not a nannystater
* justshutupandtakeit is pro-Rudy, pro nanny state and thinks that even if Rudy were a nanny stater it would benefit him since it is politically beneficial to discriminate against smokers
* flashbunny is pro-Rudy, anti nanny state, but is not quite sure if Rudy is a nanny stater or not
* EnquiringMind is neither pro nor anti Rudy, and is so pro nanny state she will actually go out of her way to vote for whichever candidate promises to straighten her out and coerce her to do the right thing for her own good
* Rita is not even aware there is an election for POTUS next year, but if she was, she would throw her support behind any candidate who promises her that she won't have to go through the inconvenience of checking whether a restaurant is smoking or non-smoking before she makes her dinner plans
* Gabz, eXe, Jeep, metesky, newguy357, TigersEye; MadameDufarge are undecided voters, anti nanny state, will hopefully trust me when I tell them that Rudy isn't a nanny stater and are trying their best to inform justshutupandtakeit who desperately needs a crash course in Nanny State politics so he can understand it better
* dirtboy is anti-Rudy and pro Duncan Hunter, anti nanny state but even he doesn't believe AFC and pissant's propaganda and will attempt to win over Freepers to Duncan Hunter with real issues and without bogus cheap shots
Do I have it all straight? If there are any inaccuracies as far as people's position please let me know and I will straighten it out.
Representative government can pass laws to control behavior. Sometimes it passes laws we like sometimes it passes laws we don't like. I don't like speed limits below 75 so what? Unless I or you can convince the voters to stop electing people to pass laws we don't like they will continue to be passed. That is the logic of representative government.
I can't see an argument at all with what you have said, except of course from the nanny staters who believe ALL establishments should be catering to their wishes.
When I was battling the smoker ban in Delaware in 2002 there was a person who testified about how much more non-smokers would be frequenting bars and restaurants. In 2003, after the ban had gone into effect, when we were battling to again return the exemption for bars this person once again testified how more non-smokers would frequent the bars. When those of us who supported the exemptions lost, I offerred to buy this person a drink as a gesture of not being a sore loser. The person looked at me and said "Thanks, but no thanks, I don't go to bars."
It wasn't the first time it had been said, but it was the one that stuck out most in my mind........people who do not frequent certain types of establishments seem to have this idea they should still be able to dictate the clientele of those establishments.