I didn't see the poster advocate LAWS in his post about McDonalds. Until he advocates the use of force, I don't see where anyone can have an argument about his approach to Mc Donalds. It is his moronic approach to these threads which is a problem for me.
I'm trying to give the fellow the benefit of the doubt. He is well within his rights to petition his city council to do a thing. Whether that thing he asks of them is really a good idea is another thing entirely.
I had rather bad allergies and asthma when I was a young child, as well. I remember having breathing attacks when going out to the shopping center and restaurants, and back then there were virtually no laws against smoking to speak of. I don't remember my parents or grandparents lobbying to outlaw tobacco, but I do remember them asking strangers to extinguish their smokes.
Be that as it may, it doesn't address the issue of whether such laws are good, whether they are harmful, or even whether the good results are outweighed negative effects. I would say that the effects of this law were rather serious for the people who worked at the restaurant in the post at the top of this thread.
Generally speaking, conservatives seem to be pretty good at realizing that adding new laws and regulations tends to negatively impact business. For every supposed good effect that a law addresses, the profitability of all businesses is affected due to the unfunded mandates of these laws. It is clear to me that the cost of mandatory smoke free business is paid by the lost livelihoods of the employees and owners of restaurants who go out of business.
I think it is necessary for business to survive or fail on the merits of their own business practices, and that this is the basis of free enterprise. It is important to note that the edicts of government can and do affect everyone. Usually conservatives or Republicans seem pretty good at realizing that do-gooding government often does more harm than good. However, there are certian emotional issues that seem to rouse the do-gooding in everyone. Children is one, and smoking is another.
I'd as readers of this thread to ask themselves: "is this trip really necessary?" I am guarded against calls to do something "for the children." It would seem to be the phrase that guarantees government action, when private action would be sufficient.