Replies

Should the government be allowed to tell bars or restaurants they can't serve foods with too much cholesterol? How about alcohol?

The point isn't what's healthy or not, the point is government trying to enforce "healthy" behavior.

Sorry, this wasn't government trying to enforce any kind of behavior. This was a constitutional amendment, that was SOUNDLY passed by the people of Florida. I voted for it, and I'm proud of that vote. I am the most anti-cigarette-lawsuit person you will ever find, because I feel that smokers should not be able to sue the tobacco companies for selling a legal product. However, when someone's putrid cigarette smoke enters my nostrils, that's when their rights end. I'm afraid this is just an issue where the majority rules. Following the whole "business-owners-should-be-able-to-decide" line of reasoning, I'll just say, business owners who don't like this rule should relocate their businesses to a smoker-friendly state.

Should the government be allowed to tell bars or restaurants they can't serve foods with too much cholesterol? How about alcohol?
The point isn't what's healthy or not, the point is government trying to enforce "healthy" behavior.
Sorry, this wasn't government trying to enforce any kind of behavior. This was a constitutional amendment, that was SOUNDLY passed by the people of Florida. I voted for it, and I'm proud of that vote.
In other words, a law got passed so government could enforce the whim of the majority. How the law got passed is immaterial. I refer to a statement made by Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, that appears in my profile as well.
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." The point that we are all making is that it should be none-of-the-business of people in general. The decision should be left up to the bar owner, the one who has staked his or her investment in the success or failure of that business. They will do what their patrons want. If business is better with a ban, there will be a ban. If not, there will not be. Perhaps they could be required to post a "smoking allowed in this establishment" sign to protect those with a legitimate health risk, and save the tender-nosed from offense. But that's it. The idea that some busybody who is offended by the smell of smoke should be allowed to make such rules for a business they would never deign to patronize is collectivist statism at its worst.
I am the most anti-cigarette-lawsuit person you will ever find, because I feel that smokers should not be able to sue the tobacco companies for selling a legal product. However, when someone's putrid cigarette smoke enters my nostrils, that's when their rights end.
What's next, a ban on flatulence? Onion breath? A law requiring everyone to bathe daily? Your use of the word "putrid" instead of "toxic" betrays your agenda. (Had you said "toxic" my counterpoint would be very different).
I'm afraid this is just an issue where the majority rules.
So if a majority wants a ban on all guns in a city, should they be allowed to do that? How about a ban on un-PC speech? The whole premise of our system of limited government is to remove topics and issues from control by the whims of the mobs and leave them up to those directly involved.
Following the whole "business-owners-should-be-able-to-decide" line of reasoning, I'll just say, business owners who don't like this rule should relocate their businesses to a smoker-friendly state.
Considering that the most used (abused) excuse for this law is "employee protection", perhaps those who work in bars that allow smoking but don't wish to be around smoke should find other employment. Certainly this would be a more appropriate solution than a bar owner being forced to abandon their investment because the people who bothered to vote thinks cigarette smoke smells "putrid". As it happens, I used to post on a bar employees forum and 95% of the posters strongly opposed these kinds of laws. Guess who gets to "enforce" them, the way most are written?
-Eric