HAH! And you call ME the liberal. That's the liberal mantra.
And I'm done on this thread. I've held my own well and don't like arguing in circles with the irration who do the rest of us conservatives a disservice.
1. The majority of eaters aren't smokers and don't want it.
2. Secondhand smoke in a restaurant endangers the health of diners.
The rights of individuals are protected by the Bill of Rights. A majority may decide hanging ferns are obnoxious, but any Upper West Side bistro owner has a God-given right in this country to hang them anyway. Now if there is clear evidence that CO2 from ferns at night damages the respiration of diners, ban away. But you need something more than than one man's common sense to take away freedoms.
In any case, thanks for the debate.
Yes, that IS the liberal mantra, and I was referring to you - the one who, with no concrete solid evidence, bases your opinion on your 'feelings'...
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
About the only thing you've held is your own BigBrother's hand.
And typical of you nanny state promoters - when you know you've lost you cut and run....at least the others who have left this thread have given reasons.
Pathetic - but, then again those who needs government to make their decisions for them usually are - and are very rarely considered conservatives.
"And I'm done on this thread. I've held my own well and don't like arguing in circles with the irration who do the rest of us conservatives a disservice."
Way to cut and run without actually answering my questions. How about it, you up to the challenge? Any "staunch conservative" ought to be able to answer these with out any effort at all:
1) The government changes the rules after the investment, therefore confiscating the property from the owner by not allowing him to use the property as he planned. Now, where is the constitutionally required enumeration for that confiscation?
2) What "rights" of the many are protected by the use of government force to restrict smoking on privately owned property?
3) Are you sure that you want me as an individual to dictate your choices of use of your property or your ability to consume legal products because I have had one negative experience?
I eagerly await your responses, clearly I need to get a better grasp of how a "staunch conservative" addresses the issues in these questions.