Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
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.
|
I think it's reasonable for the people to not want to be around smoke in enclosed places that are open to the general public. I don't think it's reasonable to ban smoking on private property that isn't open to the general public.
Quote:
|
Would you be opposed if the majority decided that restaurant owners must allow smokers?
|
I'd probably go out less, save some money. It doesn't really seem like things would be that different from how they were pre-ban when maybe 5% of the restaurants and .1% of the bars were smoke free. As it stands now, if i really want to smoke and drink, i go to the liquor store and get a 12-box for the same price as three beers would cost at a bar. Then i drink and smoke wherever i end up. The nice thing about this setup is that you generally don't have to yell to make conversation.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Where i draw the line isn't a tangible thing; it really depends on the issue. I can tell you that the rights of business rank lower than the rights of people in my particular hierarchy.