[Nuke'm Glowing]

" But if, say, I went into a restaurant and tobacco smoke wafted to my table, I could sue both the restaurant owner and the smokers nearby. A person could probably get six or eight lawsuits out of one incident."

In reality, a real man would say "can you please direct your smoke elsewhere" politely, or not "offer" his or hers monies to a restraunt which allows this. In your world, the police would beat the owner senseless for having a smoking section.

[Whilom]

In reality, a real man would say "can you please direct your smoke elsewhere" politely, or not "offer" his or hers monies to a restraunt which allows this. In your world, the police would beat the owner senseless for having a smoking section.

It's difficult to take seriously a paragraph that contains "hers monies," but let me try anyway. If you tried that "can you please direct your smoke elsewhere" here in Abilene, you'd wake up in ICU if you woke up at all. More likely to get a kindly reaction is this: "Get your smoke out of my face, dude, or get ready to sing soprano." Anyway, that's beside the point. The point is this. Who decides what conduct is lawful? And who decides what the provisions of the Constitution mean? The individual? Or the community, including of course the political and judicial system they have chosen?