Oh well. I concede this arguement simply because no one is actually addressing my main concern. I have heard all of the horror stories about how bad smoke is for your enjoyment and how you all believe flawed studies about secondhand smoke. All I can suggest is that many of you need to learn how to intrepret study results...
(Here's a hint, a difference of 2 per million between the control group and the group being studied does not actually prove anything.)
Sadly it seems that all of you that are for the ban see no problem with using the force of government to stop smoking instead of simply using market pressure. I have gone to a restraunt, been dissatisified with something and told the manager about it many times. A simple "I am leaving your place because I didn't like so-and-so" repeated day after day by all of the non-smokers in the country would cause a number of places to change their policy. Then you could start a little website that identifies all of the places that are safe for your people and everything would be good. But no, that's a little too much personal responsibility.
Why do that when you can get daddy government to take care of the mean people for you?
I think this statement bothered me the most...
Quote:
|
Any government must necessarily act as a "babysitter"
|
Any person who believes this is obviously not a person I need to be arguing with. Yes I have benefitted from regulation of private business. Thinks like food poisioning and licensing of hair stylists have made my life much better. However I believe in setting limits on that power. I hope you are happy with your babysitter. Personally, I'm an adult and don't want or need one.