Originally posted by Dago
Dont you think your right to smoke should not in any way intefere with my right not to be exposed to the crap you put into the air?
Do you really believe you have a right to foul the air and prevent me from going out, your right to overrides my right not to breath carcenogenic air?
You think I should stay home because you want the right to foul the air with toxins?
Maybe you should exercise your right to stay home, you can smoke your way into cancer and I can enjoy clean air. That way we both get to enjoy our rights. You to smoke, me to breath.
If you stay home, my eyes won't burn, my body, clothes and hair won't smell horrible from your "rights", and I will enjoy a meal out or a drink with friends so much more.
Thanks for your consideration of my rights.
A. I don't smoke and I personally find cigarette smoke offensive.
B. I support reasonable restrictions on smoking in public places. Certainly the government can and should ban smoking in public buildings, if that's what the people desire.
C. However, I do not considder a ban on smoking in restraunts to be a reasonable intrusion of the government into the operation of a private establishment.
In the smallish city where I live, there were several non-smoking restraunts and two non-smoking bars BEFORE the collective nannyism decided that smoking should be banned altogether. The free market was voting with their dollars.
I enjoy going into any restraunt or sports bar without having to worry about a smokey atmosphere, but I do not believe it's a government protected right.
You say people should stay at home and smoke. I'm asking, how long until the nannyists decide that I can't smoke at home? (Again, I don't smoke, but in a free country I should be able to choose to).
I believe in
reasonable government and that a
reasonable place to draw the line is with privately owned establishments - where you have the free choice to frequent or not frequent one as you see fit for any reason, be it too much smoke or watered down drinks.
But the nannyists don't understand reason. They only understand excercising the tyrany of the many under the disguise of "the common good".
Again - being able to do what the majority of society finds acceptable is not freedom. Legislating away all "undesirable" behavior, no matter whether you are "right" or "in the majority" is NOT what this coutry was founded upon. An individual's right to make bad choices is exactly what freedom means, so long as those choices don't infringe on another individual's constitutionally protected freedoms - which does not include your right to go to any restraunt or bar and expect a smoke-free environment.
