[VetsRule]

State and local governments have the power to regulate activity even inside of private businesses. Those same bars need to obtain liquor licenses from most if not all states of the Union. The concept is the same. So long as there is a rational basis for the law, and so long as no protected classes or federal issues are implicated, state and local governments can enact laws regulating smoking.

In my view, anyway.

VR

[Gabz]

I understand your point regarding licensing.

So why not have a license to permit smoking, just as there is one for serving alcohol???

That seems like a no-brainer to me.

[jimt]

State and local governments have the power to regulate activity even inside of private businesses. Those same bars need to obtain liquor licenses from most if not all states of the Union. The concept is the same. So long as there is a rational basis for the law, and so long as no protected classes or federal issues are implicated, state and local governments can enact laws regulating smoking.

And they exercise that power way too many times, under false guises. There are no valid studies that indicate smoking is anything more than annoying to the anti-smoking crowd. Does the Constitution include a right not to be annoyed ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY? I don't think so. And if it does, I want a law passed that every Mrs. Grundy who wants to mind everyone elses' business be summarily stripped of citizenship, all assets forfeited, and be deported to France or Germany or whatever socialist utopia will have them - on the basis that they're annoying as all get-out.

There is no rational basis for the law - and even if there were it should not override property rights.