[dallasgop]

Publius,

That was a pretty lame response, I was hoping for better. I have no problem with drug dependent individual's getting high all they want in the comfort and privacy of their homes and cars. But when you are in public I do not appreciate being exposed to the noxious foul smoke of people who have a drug problem. When I am in a restaurant I not appreciate having my dinner spoiled by some drug dependent individual smoking next to me. You probably would not appreciate me changing a crap filled diaper next to you in a restaurant while you ate, I bet you would find the smell offensive and it would detract from your meal. I feel the same about tobacco. The difference is you won't go home smelling like baby poop.
There is no constitutional right to smoke in public, there is ample evidence of the adverse health risk associated with tobacco usage. America is becoming a no smoking in public nation, it is time for nicotine addicted adults to grow up and recognize the trend and maybe even think of getting help with their drug problems. I will patronize no smoking establishments and I have made my business a no smoking office staffed with 100% non smokers. I do not hire smokers.!!!!!!!!!!!!! dallasgop Vote for Bush

[dallasgop]

When someone drinks coffee or tea next to me I know I will not go home with that smell on my body.

[Hilltop]

I truly do not care what your hiring practices are. Your need to use exclamation points in support of your argument is really quite sophomoric.

I think a smoke might help you calm yourself.

[NYCVirago]

was hoping for better. I have no problem with drug dependent individual's getting high all they want in the comfort and privacy of their homes and cars.

You know, we could completely stop drunk driving now if people could only drink in the privacy of their own homes. There is no constutional right for bars to exist, after all. Let those evil drinkers keep their habits to themselves, and only drink at home!

[jess35]

You have no constitutional right to enter a private establishment and dictate their policy.

[Just another Joe]

Now that you have posted a semi-reasoned response I will respond in kind.

#1. What gives you the idea that all smokers are, and I quote, "drug dependent individual's getting high"?

Are you saying that anyone that smokes is addicted?

But when you are in public

Are you saying that a privately owned business is publicly owned?

There is no constitutional right to smoke in public

You are correct, there is no constitutional right to smoke ANYWHERE.
It's called a liberty for the person smoking.
I think there could be a case made for the constitutional right of a property owner to allow smoking. I just don't think any property owner has had the cajones too take it that far yet.

I will patronize no smoking establishments and I have made my business a no smoking office staffed with 100% non smokers

I wouldn't try to strip you of that liberty but remember, if the govt can proclaim that businesses MUST ban smoking they can also proclaim that businesses MUST allow smoking. Is that what you want?
Wouldn't it be better if the business OWNER can make the choice?

[CSM]

"I will patronize no smoking establishments and I have made my business a no smoking office staffed with 100% non smokers. I do not hire smokers.!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Since you seem to forget this is a choice left to the property owner, not up to the government to dictate private property use to suit your own desires, would you support legislation by the government that forced you to hire smokers and to offer facilities for them? What if the majority of the people smoked, would you support tyranny of the majority to suit my needs?

It is up the the owner of the property, no one forces you by gunpoint to enter that private property!!!!!!

[NJ Freeper]

I don't even smoke stupid. My problem is with the government telling private business owners who they can and can't have in their estableshment. Lots of restaurants and clubs have dress codes. If you're not dressed properly you won't get in. The government shouldn't FORCE these businesses to accept everybody.

It's the same thing with smoking. I don't think that all bars should have to accept smokers nor do I feel that all bars should be non-smoking. If you want to go to a non-smoking bar then go. If you want to go to a smoking bar then go. If there's a market for non-smoking bars then I'm sure business owners will open them and you can go to them. But for the government to PROHIBIT private business owners from admitting people to their establishment to engage in a LEGAL activity really bothers me.

If you consider yourself a conservative and someone who is for individual freedom and for getting the nanny state out of people's personal lives it should bother you as well. As many people here have said, if they can dictate what is good and what is bad, and can force free citizens to do or not do certain things "for your own good" we should all be very, very afraid.

Also, your previous comment that "smokers are losers" is one of the stupidest comments I've ever seen here on freerepublic.

[Dan from Michigan]

If you want no smoking in your business, that's your choice and I have no problem with it. The only problem I have is if you are one of those freedom grabbers who want to force government to make the choice for other places.

As for trends, I don't follow them. I set my own and let others follow me.

And for the record, I only smoke an occasional cigar about twice a month. I'm hardly a nicotine junkie. I am a freedom junkie.