What would be the limit to your "extent?"
Though in this case it really didn't seem like much of the public was lobbying the government. It was more like the government and some small groups lobbied the public, and the public voted for it.
Actually, as I believe you've acknowledged, smokers are in a minority.
So, the "small groups" who rely on the government for their sinecure gang up on the demonized minority to ensure that their sinecure endures yea unto etermity.
Usually, our rights get restricted because...
Rights can't be resticted. Simple enough.
In this case, at least here in Ohio, the groups lobbied the public, and the ban was enacted by popular vote through a ballot issue.
"Popular vote = mob rule.
I agree with your take on this, that it was wrong. I disagree that it was not unconsitutional.
Years of case law versus constitutional law arguments in the courts have eroded original intent.
For crying out loud, how difficult is it to trace the erosion?
How much the people are willing to accept the intrusion of the government in their lives, is directly related to how much other peoples actions are bothering them.
Good Lord, this is truly a measure of how weak some of us have beome.
I'd give an example, but I don't want to equate smoking with something more heinous like true hate speech.
You actually think there's something called "hate speech?" So you're in favor of the concept of "thought crimes" then I assume.
Smoking I don't see how the smoking ban here in Ohio is unconstitutional. It was put in place by popular vote,
Tyranny of the majority.
and while many people feel it is overly restrictive, most people seem pretty happy with the results.
Yes, as long as "most people" are pretty happy with results, we've got the validation of mob rule.
I agree with your take on this, that it was wrong. I disagree that it was not unconsitutional.
Years of case law versus constitutional law arguments in the courts have eroded original intent.
Our rights have definitely been watered down by activist judges, and different "rights" created that had not existed.
So feel free to go back to the original documents.
How are the bands unconstitutional? What portion of the constitution do they violate? Remember that these are bans at the state level, so it's not a matter of the federal government not having the authority to regulate smoking.