[VRWC_minion]

Restaurants are not public accomodations, they are privately owned and as such the owner has the right to run his establishment as he sees fit.

What is your opinion if the majority of restaurants want smoking banned and work together with the state to enact a ban ? isn't that a private property right of the owners to petition for regulations ?

[Liberal Classic]

In my opinion, no, I do not believe that if a majority of restaurant owners simply want a certian thing that they should have it. I do not believe in a pure democracy such as that.

Does the state constitution give the government the authority to do so? And what about the rights of those restaurant owners who do not approve of such a ban? Do they not have some expectation of private property rights when it comes to the manner in which they run their business?

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"What is your opinion if the majority of restaurants want smoking banned and work together with the state to enact a ban ? isn't that a private property right of the owners to petition for regulations ?"

Based on that statement, the Jim Crow laws were legal. And despite your utopian view of government, they are still enforced in Alabama and Mississippi, once you get away from the major cities. So if you walked into my business and I refused to serve you, you will get the man with the gun to come in there and force me to. Pure facism in my book.

[saminfl]

What is your opinion if the majority of restaurants want smoking banned and work together with the state to enact a ban ? isn't that a private property right of the owners to petition for regulations ?

Why would one restaurant want to ban smoking in another restaurant? If a group of restaurant owners got together to get the state to ban smoking, isn't that equiviant to price fixing? Why doesn't this group of restaurants just ban smoking in their own places? By the way, I am a non-smoker.