Prpoery rigths exist. Its the owners of the property that are requesting their rights be subject to a smoking ban. Thses bans are being done using due process. This is not a property rights issue. It may be a due process issue, but property rights can be impaired so long as a due process is followed.
I have said before that I believe that in the case of a restuarant owner who was allowed smoking and where a town disallow it they have effectively taken his property and the owner has the right to compensation but the remedy is still not to allow smoking. Further, in the case of a regional wide ban I cannot see how an owner could prove lost of income unless he is at the border of the regional ban.
Number 1 - They can ALREADY do that simply by making their business 'No Smoking Allowed' and letting other business people make their OWN decision whether or not to allow smoking, spitting, cussing, etc.
Number 2 - What about the business man that does NOT request that they be subject to a smoking ban? Are THEIR property rights to be trampled on simply because a majority doesn't want to enter their business if they allow smoking? (Not that I think a majority wouldn't enter simply because a business owner allowed smoking)
If this was the case the 'smoking allowed' businessman would go out of business shortly after the 'no smoking allowed' business person banned smoking from their establishment.
Incorrect. I'll fix it for you.
Its the SOME OF the owners of the SOME OF THE property that are requesting their OTHERS rights be subject to a smoking ban.
Thses bans are being done using due process. This is not a property rights issue.
Nice try, BS, but nice try.
It may be a due process issue, but property rights can be impaired so long as a due process is followed.
Nice try again, but no soap. Rights may be violated, but they still exist. If I kill you, you will be dead, but the fact that I denied your right to live doesn't mean that no such right existed. You may vote (due process) to violate my rights, but the fact that you do that doesn't mean my rights don't exist.
All this betrays your real authoritarian agenda. Stop masquerading as an American.
If a business could show that before a ban they made X amount of money of which Y was the amount of profit - and AFTER the ban they made X-30%X and the profit was Y-Z, which was LESS than they made BEFORE the ban I think that would prove loss of income.
ESPECIALLY if they could then show that businesses outside the border of the ban made X before the ban and now they made X+30%X AFTER the ban.
Whether the business working under the ban was near the border, or not, seems to me would be irrelevant.