[CSM]

You keep trying to bring it around to "because people here can't smoke in certain places" when in reality it is about the right of the property owner to decide to cater to people like you or people like me. They have the right to do either and we have the right to reward that choice.

In California, they no longer have that right, thereby eliminating our ability to chose. Actually, just eliminating the choice for people like me. You seem to be OK with this. How would you feel if the government passed legislation that eliminated your choice and catered to people like me by forcing all property owners to accomodate smokers?

When we lose respect for private property, which is the case with your state, then we no longer have private property. How will you feel when the tobacco infringement is completed and they move on to food items? What would you do if certain foods were banned at restaurants? How about custody cases being decided based on government approved diet plans? At what point does it stop?

[Hildy]

I alread said I'm against it, what would you like me to do..what are you doing?

[Gabz]

The anti-smokers have already proven that the big arm of big borther can force private businesses to ban smoking.

What they fail to acknowlege is that because they have forced that down the business owner's throats without their permission they have also granted the big brother government the right to mandate that all businesses to permit smoking.

Can you hear now the collective screaming of the ban proponents if legislation was introduced some where forcing all businesses to be smoking permitted?????

Personally I would laugh at them. It's actually the exact thing they are promoting.