Replies

"Wrong. You are supporting the confiscation of private property in the name of public good."

Wrong. I am supporting basic health regulations for the common good, and you are opposing them. There is no "confiscation" involved.

"That stance is very socialistic and to call it anything else is a lie."

Bull. That stance - supoorting public health - is the basis for such things as the health codes that restaurants currently operate under. Is forbidding restaurants to serve rotten meat "socialistic'? Of course not, and banning smoking in restaurants isn't either.

You are clutching at straws and spewing hyperbole. You have no argument.

"I am supporting basic health regulations for the common good, and you are opposing them. There is no "confiscation" involved."

In any instance where a government imposed regulation (law) infringes upon a private property owners ability to use that property as they intend to use it is confiscation. Many restaurant and bar owners invested in expensive equipment to filter the air and make it more comfortable for their patrons. By passing a law restricting them from serving smokers, and realising a profit from those customers, the government has confiscated that use of the property. Any confiscation of a use of property is, in effect, confiscation of that property.

"That stance - supoorting public health - is the basis for such things as the health codes that restaurants currently operate under. Is forbidding restaurants to serve rotten meat "socialistic'? Of course not, and banning smoking in restaurants isn't either."

Yes, these health regulations are socialistic. If a restaurant wants to serve rotten meat to customers who want to eat rotten meat, then they should be free to do it. Any restaurant owner that wants to continue to attract customers will make sure that they serve a quality product. If they don't the customers will not arrive. The market should drive these things, not the government.

You support the government driving the market. Socialism at its worst!

Bull. That stance - supoorting public health - is the basis for such things as the health codes that restaurants currently operate under. Is forbidding restaurants to serve rotten meat "socialistic'? Of course not, and banning smoking in restaurants isn't either.

I understand the point you are trying to make, however, there is an important difference between selling bad food, and allowing customers to engage in a legal act (smoking). The first constitutes criminal negligence or intent that will defintely sicken or kill people, without their prior knowledge. This is something we as American generally outlaw.

However, the second situation is different. The owner of that property has decided to allow/forbid smoking - as he should be able to given that this is his property, given that smoking is a legal act on private property, without exception. The customers, if they are concerned about such a rule, can get full knowledge of this before they enter and patronize the business. The decision of the customer to endure cigarette smoke or not is up to the customer, and the business owner will benefit or suffer based on that choice. This is capitalism at its finest.

You, however, feel that "public health" should extend past criminal acts into "annoying" acts. Despite your arguments concerning second-hand smoke being bad for you, etc., etc., ultimately any second hand smoke that you endure is simply an annoyance. The "damage" to your health is laughable - you inhale more toxins walking on a city street than from one or two hours in a restaurant. But, because you are annoyed, and in the majority (non-smokers), you have enacted legislation to hinder poperty-owner's rights under the guise of "public health". I find that not only socialistic, but dishonest as well. Don't worry though, the only people that will have to suffer from this legislation are business owners without porches. And who cares about them? Or their tax dollars?

This fits you to a T:

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis