[cinFLA]

No, I do not believe that even a local group of property owners would mutually contract to disallow smoking on their property.

They have, many times. It's called a no-smoking ordinance.

[MrLeRoy]

I do not believe that even a local group of property owners would mutually contract to disallow smoking on their property.

They have, many times. It's called a no-smoking ordinance.

That's not a mutual contract but tyranny of a majority.

[TKDietz]

What's so wrong with local smoking ordinances? If people in a given community want to pass laws governing their community, let them. That's a whole lot different than when you have people way off in Washington, D.C., trying shove laws down your throat that your community doesn't want. Communities should be able to govern themselves, decide whether they'll allow smoking or drinking in public places and so on. And if people don't like the laws, they can just move on down the road to another community.

I live in the south. In my town, alcohol is sold in stores and at restaurants and bars. Right across the bridge though in the neighboring county where I work, it is against the law for anyone to sell alcohol. The majority of the people here in the dry county want their town to stay dry. I don't have a problem with that. Actually, I'm pretty sure that most counties in my state are dry. I think it's kind of stupid because people just end up driving miles and miles drunk when they run out of booze, but if that's what people in these counties want, so be it.

Why shouldn't the majority of people in your town be able to decide if smoking will be allowed in public places? What's so un-American or undemocratic about that? It seems to me that our forefathers believed in having local rule that reflected local values.