Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CSM
Then I am sure that you are more than willing to stay off of private property where I am welcome.

Smokers, while partaking of a legal product, a legal activity, are illegally barred from public places, their freedoms are removed, as well as the freedom of the property owner.

A constitutionally sound way to handle those who do not like smoke is to remind them they have the freedom NOT to enter where people are excersizing their freedom to smoke congregate.

Why is it that we allow the Constitution to be ignored? Activists judges and special interests should be told to jump in the lake whenever they even suggest a freedom be corrupted.

83 posted on 03/13/2008 10:30:41 AM PDT by Shortcake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]


To: Shortcake

I even had a discussion with the owner of an adult beverage distribution center and he made the statement that he hoped that the state would ban smoking in bars and restaurants. I looked him in the eye and asked him why. He stated that he didn’t like smoking. So, I pointed out that he owned the property, which meant he could ban smoking any time he wanted.

He admitted that his customers mostly smoked and that his business would be hurt if he voluntarily banned it. He couldn’t understand that his business would be hurt by a ban enforced by the state.

Needless to say, I live in a heavy Democrat area!


87 posted on 03/13/2008 10:46:21 AM PDT by CSM (Kakistocracy: Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson