You also fail to see the utility of not being allowed to change the rules after the agreement is made. Very liberal.
If the activity were illegal, you would have a much better argument. But, because you dislike the activity, you prefer to assert your right over any they have.
“If the activity were illegal, you would have a much better argument. But, because you dislike the activity, you prefer to assert your right over any they have.”
It isn’t so much that I dislike the “activity,” but rather that it is proven to be a health hazard to others. I am only describing the anti-smoking laws here in California which would preempt the owner of a unit in a building to smoke if that act impinged on the other residents. It’s interesting that you seemingly see property rights superior to people’s health. I guess that because it IS ILLEGAL here in California I see things differently. And I can honestly say that it is a pleasure from the standpoint of protecting citizens health, to be able to go about our business in an atmosphere nearly totally devoid of tobacco smoke. Now, if only other laws here were as well thought out, it could be a good place to live.