Replies

Boy, I missed most of an interesting thread.

Having read up to now, what jumps out among all the anti-smoking arguments, is that they fail to acknowledge any rights of a private business owner (restaurants, hotels, bars) yet, they speak of this mythical "right" to breath clean air (in other people's private businesses). It's frightening how easily the concept of private property is jettisoned over an irritant that is easily avoidable (and lets not pretend that there haven't already been non-smoking restaurants before this law, besides the no-smoking sections in just about every restaurant in the nation).

And the resorting to legislation! Good God, what happened to our free society? If only 25% of people smoke, then let's see an explanation as to why legislation was necessary to force restaurants/bars/hotels to cater to the other 75% of the population? The portion of the 25% of the population that smokes has the power to force all restaurants to allow smoking, huh?

I can't believe that people on a conservative site are arguing that government regulation is OK, as long as it benefits them.

BTW, there's a good reason to draw a comparison to Hitler and other fascists. If you read up a bit on your history, and how the German's reacted to the Nazi's, you'll find that they were quite willing to abridge others' rights, as long as those people were "objectionable" in some way. Turns out, that once you've opened that door, eventually everyone is "objectionable" to the state in some way. It's not name-calling as much as pointing out the fallacy of the argument by example.

One last thing, and this applies to any legislation. Take a moment to think about what the ultimate result would be for an owner to fail to comply with this law, or any law. Sure, first offenses would be minor, but if they persisted, eventually some government official is going to force them to comply at the point of a gun. You can guess what will happen if they resist at that point. Its something to remember when you advocate legislation.

All legislation is ultimately enforced via the point of a government gun.

Take a moment to think about what the ultimate result would be for an owner to fail to comply with this law, or any law. Sure, first offenses would be minor, but if they persisted, eventually some government official is going to force them to comply at the point of a gun.

Truer words have never been spoken.

No where in the legislation of the Delaware smoking ban is the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission (ABCC) mentioned.

Yet 3 weeks after the ban went into effect, and one establishment had already been cited for non-compliance 2 times - the ABCC was quick to state that any repeat violators of the smoke ban were in danger of losing their liquor licenses.

I can't believe that people on a conservative site are arguing that government regulation is OK, as long as it benefits them.

I walk away from Free Republic a lot over that statement. And the fact of life that even our own kind hate us. How can anyone win any issue, when we can't even protect and stick-up for our own, babyface?