There is a hellofadifference between the Fire Marshall setting an absolute limit on the number of patrons allowed in a building and a legislative body passing blanket no-smoking rules. Likewise, there is a hellofadifference between the bar owner refusing to serve a drunk another drink and a legislative body passing blanket no-smoking rules.
What is reasonable is owner-option: If the owner of a business decides that his patrons may smoke, then those who don't smoke or are offended by smokers have the option to not patronize the business.
It is that simple.
In respect of the difficulty you wife encountered in a restaurant with smoke, remember, you both voluntarily went in there knowing that smoking was allowed. You could have gone to another restaurant, where smoking was not allowed BY THE OWNERS!
If we continue to allow government to dictate behavior to us, we are doomed. The Nazification of America continues, and I am astonished that you would argue in favor of it!
Actually, I no longer wish to discuss this issue with you.
It is apparent that you have abandoned your Conservative and/or Libertarian principles in this case and are advocating government control of personal habits and private businesses (Nazification of America).
You are not going to change your mind and I am not going to change mine, so let us agree to disagree and stop right here.
Likewise, there is a hellofadifference between the bar owner refusing to serve a drunk another drink and a legislative body passing blanket no-smoking rules.
That is quite right.
When a person is told that, because of laws on intoxication, he cannot have a drink in a restaurant or bar and he still wants to drink, his only legal alternative is to go home or to a friend's home and drink. In every city and state, drinking out in the open is a violation of at least one or more laws, meant to prevent public intoxication.
On the other hand, when a restaurant or bar patron is told that, because of public health laws, he cannot smoke inside, all that the smoker has to do is walk about 20 or so feet (in most cases) and he is free to light up in the parking lot and smoke as much as he likes. Problem solved. There is no law, nor is there justification for such law to prevent people from smoking in an open outdoor area.
So, as you point out, there is a "hellofadifference" between the drinker's options and the smoker's options. There is another difference between the drinkers and smokers who are told that they can't partake of their vice in an establishment. A drunk will generally mutter a few nasty comments about the parentage of the lawmakers that passed that law and then leave quietly. Most smokers, on the other hand, will become very loud and obnoxious. In fact, I have seen that reaction numerous times when a smoker chose to light up in the non-smoking section and was reminded that he or she was in the nonsmoking section. In one case, an off-duty deputy had to threaten to arrest the smoker for disorderly conduct, before he quieted down and left. Yes, there certainly is a "hellofadifference" between the drinkers and smokers.
Furthermore, I never suggested "blanket no-smoking bans". All that I suggest is that one or more governmental bodies should ban smoking only in enclosed public places and at large outdoor public gatherings (concerts, parades, etc.).
If you want to kill yourself, that should be your right. But, you have no right to risk the lives of others in the process. Smoke at home. Smoke in your car. Smoke at the park. Smoke in the parking lot. I will stand up for your right to do that. But, when your smoking endangers the life of even one other person, you have stepped over the line and if you and others are too selfish to realize that, then the government does indeed have very good cause to step in and enact a ban on smoking in enclosed public places, to protect the people that those smokers thoughtlessly put at risk.
In respect of the difficulty you wife encountered in a restaurant with smoke, remember, you both voluntarily went in there knowing that smoking was allowed. You could have gone to another restaurant, where smoking was not allowed BY THE OWNERS!
You conveniently forget that we went there that night, believing that the worst that would happen would be a little nausea that we could deal with. We had no idea that the second-hand smoke at the restaurant would almost kill my wife that night. Had we known that she had developed asthma, we would not have gone or she would have taken an inhaler before leaving the house. In fact, we do most often avoid restaurants that allow smoking. But, the point that I was making is that there are many unexpected adverse reactions to second-hand cigarette smoke and some of those are deadly. That is why smoking in an enclosed public place should be banned.
It is apparent that you have abandoned your Conservative and/or Libertarian principles in this case and are advocating government control of personal habits and private businesses (Nazification of America).
I resent most vehemently, your suggestion that I have abandoned my Conservative/Libertarian Principles. If either of us has abandoned their Conservative principles or any other principles, for that matter, it is you. What you advocate is Anarchy! But worse yet, you do so for no better reason than that you selfishly don't want to be "INCONVENIENCED" by having to walk 20 or so feet to the door, to light up. I honestly thought that you respected the rights and well-being of others. I'm normally a much better judge of character. Boy, was I wrong about you!
Let the owner do whatever he wants, regardless of how it affects anyone else. Let people do whatever they want, regardless of how it affects anyone else. All government is bad, especially if it prevents you from doing something that you want to do, even if what you want to do endangers others. After all, you are the only person who is really important. That's ANARCHY!
Neither Conservatism nor Libertarianism advocates that the government stay out of all business and allow the owners to run their business in such a manner as to jeopardize the public, as you suggest. Even the most rabid Libertarian wants and even demands some government. As a Conservative, I stand for very limited government, but government, nonetheless. Laws controlling business should be limited to only those that pertain to such factors as fraud, safety and public health. But, where those laws are called for, I stand solidly behind them, even if a few of those laws should happen to INCONVENIENCE me. That's Conservatism!
I never have advocated and never will advocate Anarchy. Our Constitution wasn't meant just for you. It applies to other people too. You don't get to trample other people's rights just because you find them "INCONVENIENT".
You can have your Anarchy. I'll stick with Conservatism. Actually, it is said that the difference between an Anarchist and a Conservative is that a Conservative is an Anarchist who cares about other people, as much as for himself.