Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Like i tried to say above, i don't care. I don't have a problem with that setup. I also said that i don't have a problem with other people deciding that they don't want a set up like that and making it illegal. I don't have a problem with regulation of private property and business. I actually think that regulation of private property and businesses is essential to a well functioning society. This seems to be where we differ.
|
It's not black and white for me, I'm not opposed to
some regulation and I've already listed some that I find reasonable and even essential. Banning smoking on private property? Not reasonable
or essential.
Would you be opposed if the majority decided that restaurant owners
must allow smokers?
I find the whole health argument to be an irredeemably flawed justification, but if it's a matter of "I don't see a need for a justification, majority rule is enough", that's a whole 'nother argument. Then I'm interested in where exactly you'd draw the line - what shouldn't be allowed even if it has majority approval? We can probably both agree that slavery shouldn't be put to a vote and that increased funding for a local rec center should be votable... but between those two extremes, where do you draw the line?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sultana
How about that restaurant is moved to a area (state, county, whatever) where a restaurant like that is tolerated/allowed? Much like a non-smoker has to seek out places of business where non-smoking is enforced.
|
Those two situations are hardly equivalent.
Yeah, that's probably the most pragmatic solution for smoke-minded people in states with bans, but I'd prefer that all states respect property rights. And although it's less pragmatic, it's hardly out of the realm of plausibility to fight to overturn these bans.