Replies

So the elected officials banning smoking is not a good thing, just as the ballot initiatives. What do you think is the proper way to make the stinking offender understand that they stink, and they offend the rest of us with their stink! Obviously, they are not sensitive enough to realize that on their own. Hence, some one has to hit them with a 2x4 to get their attention! You stink! Cover it up, or stay away from people that you offend. The bars and restaurant owners cannot act as a police, and do not like to arbitrate this confrontation between insensitive smokers, and militant intolerant non-smokers, which I am not one! Believe me, I am very tolerant of smokers. I know they need their fix, like any drug addict. My hope is that the new generations of youngsters don't take this stupid habit, however, that is not going to happen.

Lets take an arbitrary step away and remove smoking out of the equation per se so perhaps I can understand.

We have this activity. It is legal. It offends some people. Over long periods of time, it is unhealthy to the participant. Recently, some people believe it is unhealthy to others.

This activity is already illegal in public places (places that are "owned" by the public - libraries, post offices, government buildings, etc.) so people who are offended by this activity only have to "deal" with it in private establishments.

Every private business had the option to ban this activity in the past. Some created separate sections to accomodate those who chose to participate, and those who chose not to. Very few businesses prohibited this activity, because they believed doing so would hurt their business.

There was no move by the offended ones to encourage businesses to voluntarily ban this activity.

There was no move by the offended to encourage businesses to clearly identify their policy on this activity, so that those who were offended could patronize other establishments.

Instead, the government of California has seen fit to ban a legal activity in a private business, simply because some people who might patronize or work at the business might be offended.

And you guys don't have a problem with this?

Is there anything that personally annoys you that you would have a problem with the government banning? I'd like to hear an example of where you draw the line. (Unhealty) Food? (Dangerous-looking) Guns? (Offensive) Speech? (Anti-government) Thoughts?

Or is the government just this big huggable benevolent entity that doles out "rights" and takes them away - all for your own good, of course.

I think Sam Adams said it best - "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animated contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

I hope that I can speak for more members of FR than myself when I say I'd rather be annoyed by smoking everywhere I go, then have the tyranny of the majority poking its noses into private businesses conducting legal activities, and I don't care how much "good" the government thinks its doing, or how many times its used this flawed argument in the past.

I know that most people think secession is illegal. Can the rest of us vote a state out of the union?