Do you think that the "government" gets up in the morning and brainstorms ideas to stick it to smokers? It is other citizens who are driving their political leaders to give them a rest from all of the smoke in various establishments. And, non-smokers have as much right to a smoke-free environment when the establishment is open to the general public. Non-smokers exist too.
The problem is that people like you will never agree to peaceful coexistance, where we can have non-smoking restaurants and bars where delicate flowers like yourself can congregate to congratulate yourselves on being morally superior and we can have smoking bars and restaurants where all the real people can go.
Why does almost every government issued bar and tavern license state that the establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone?
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."
-Betrand de Jouvenel
We were talking about the MARKET driving smoking bans, weren't we? If the MARKET were driving smoking bans then why aren't businesses going non-smoking by themselves?
Could it be that there is a MARKET for smokers that the government is closing down?
I don't say that smokers DON'T have a right to a smoke free environment IF they can convince a business owner that it is in their best interest to make their business non-smoking.
The general public is INVITED into a PRIVATE business.
And it's NOT ALL other citizens who are driving the political leaders, it's anti-smoker scare tactics.
Actually I not only think this - I know it for fact.
It is other citizens who are driving their political leaders to give them a rest from all of the smoke in various establishments
Actually you are wrong. There are numerous organizations, many of which get much in the way of public funds (read taypayer money) that are fomenting all of this dissent. These people make nice salaries doing this. The article you posted previously quotes one of them.
I have email from one of these organizations encouraging their members to call, write, email or fax their legislators, the governor and the newspapers to express their opposition to any measures that will weaken Delaware's statewide smoking ban. In the email they are specifically told to NOT disclose their memberbership in an organization that is based through the Delaware Department of Health and Social Sevices...........
Another email from this organization includes an email to them by a Delaware State Senator. I've got no problem with that in general. What bothers me is that this Senator is promoting this group and it's founder as some grass roots group of people who don't like smoking. That is so far from the truth that it is more than just a simple white lie. In a 3 year period (1990-92) the founder of this organization received more than $20 million in state grants in California. Every penny of it was for his anti-smoker "research" and every penny of it was funded by a cigarette tax increase on the smokers of California.
But let me take this even further. The other heavily funded group the good Delaware state Senator is in contact with is in New York. He's in direct contact with the founder and head of that group. And as you seem to be such a rah-rah supporter of what these organizations are doing all over the country I'm sure you're truly going to like this - he is an out of the closet homosexual and he and his partner are the daddies to 2 teenage girls.
I actually videotapped their appearance on CBS Sunday morning a year or so ago. What a fabulous roll model he is for his daughters, a former stock broker who (allegedly)gave up his career to be an (highly paid) anti-smoker advocate. The CBS profile had nothing to do with smoking - it was solely centered on "alternative" families.
Apparently it is better "for the children" to be an anti-smoker than it is to be a NORMAL family.
If you haven't gotten the idea yet - anti-smokers, in my opinion, are no better than anti-gunners. They all make me equally ill.
Well, actually, yes. Politicians like Henry Waxman are absoloute True Believer foam-at-the-mouth anti-smokers and others just see a convenient cash cow.
It is other citizens who are driving their political leaders to give them a rest from all of the smoke in various establishments.
Oh, you poor, misguided soul. Do you honestly believe these crusaders are simply citizens finally standing up for their rights? Little hustler Stanton Glantz who gets several million dollars a year plus many more for UCSF, or portly John Banzhaf, the attorney who has made anti-smokerism a 30-year career, are simply citizens like the rest of us. In a pig's eye! If you do believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...
And, non-smokers have as much right to a smoke-free environment when the establishment is open to the general public. Non-smokers exist too.
Ah, but here is where you're wrong, don't you see? An establishment can be open to the public without being public property, and that has always been true until the current hype and hysteria trampled all over everyone's private property rights and individual liberties. You are completely entitled to any kind of environment you want, but you're not entitled to the whole damn world. Whether you like it or not.