[monday]

"Uh, when he applies for the LICENSE to operate a restuarant he is agreeing to abide by the local ordinances. "

So you don't even argue that the smoking prohibitionists are fair. It's just that because restaurants have the misfortune of having to obtain licenses in order to operate, the owners lose all property rights.

I suppose since government requires licenses to drive a vehicle, it would be logical for you, if they banned smoking in private vehicles as well?

[WildTurkey]

I was just saying that once you accept that idea that an establishment is to be licensed by the municipality, then you accept that conditions are place on the license by the municipality. I was not arguing the validity of any one restriction, only that it is a better case to be made that one should not have to license a legal activity performed on private property and this argument is never made in any of the "editorials" that are posted. Why?