I can't argue with that. Well said. However, I will say this, smoking cigarettes is legal, discriminating against people is not. Ban the act of smoking, not where it's done. I know most non smokers don't like that though, because as previously stated, the lost revenue will be shipped to your property taxes.

Or, we could keep the existing system and just not obligate insurance companies to cover substance abuse-related illnesses?

Why is discrimination illegal? BTW, I can discriminate all I want in my own home. Sounds the same to me.

I'd be Ok with that, too.

Personally I'd prefer to go for a cash-and-carry system. Do what you want as long as you can either afford it or are Ok dealing with the consequences.

Now they do. There are a large number of restaurants in KC that voluntarily prohibit smoking, without a ban. Should we pass a law because your poor great-great-grandmother's second cousin had to endure secondhand smoke while working the Sailors at the waterfront tavern? I don't think so. The markets have recognized a demand, and accommodated it (without needing a law to get it done...Imagine that!)
So's carbon monoxide. Where's your rant about your right to walk around without being exposed to the horrors of car exhaust and smog?
Partly correct, it's about whether the business owner has the right to decide for themselves if they want to allow smoking in their establishment or not. Also, if they want to deal with the loss of business from smokers or non-smokers with regard to that decision.

Why can't you understand that?

So would I. Where we differ is you would decide for everyone else they can't take option 2 even if the business owner and his customer want to. That's bullshit.

None at all. I seriously doubt anyone has ever forced you into an establishment that allows smoking. If they did, you're covered under kidnapping laws I suspect.
Smart boy, I knew you could figure it out. Exactly! If the market can decide, you have a choice on non-smoking and smoking establishments to go to. If you don't want to breathe secondhand smoke, you choose to NOT GO to that business.
Quite brilliant, actually. It's a snapshot of the system that made this countries economy superior to most of the world.

Link
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy

Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections


So the public voting on an issue isn't a form of democracy? I understand that the country has a republic form of government, but if the public votes on a ballot initiative, that is a democracy. Isn't it? :hmmm:

Slayer Diablo, is that you? LMAO

Yeah, too bad the world doesn't revolve around "deal with it". I don't walk around the office farting or scratching myself at work... if I go to the gym or play racquetball during lunch, I shower for the benefit of others more than for my own benefit. For the same benefit of others, I don't show up to work in boxers everyday. I don't make people deal with my disgusting habits/behavior because I expect the same decency in return.

Oh wait, but if your disgusting habit is smoking, by all means... I don't mind going home smelling like I've been in a bar all day, or walking through a cloud of smoke on my way inside. Just remind me to take a dump in your cube so we'll be even. :rolleyes:

Like I said before... I agree with smittybar's post about letting the owners of bars decide for themselves.... I can get a drink someplace else. But for a decent restaurant, work, shopping, etc; come on... :banghead:

In states around the US and countries around the world, smoking bans have not harmed the overall economy of restaurants and bars and there has not been a long-term drop off in revenues.

As the population becomes more educated about the dangers of smoking, there will continue to be a downward spiral as to the number of smokers, making the law nearly irrelevant at some point in time.

Technically, we are a Representative Republic, which is a form of Democracy. Some folks don't like one label or the other because of (IMO) some silly PR thing with the Democratic and Republican parties.

REP! :thumb: :clap:

This thread seems to be a good case study.

Sorry, I was a little curt there. You didn't deserve that. Mea Culpa.

I agree we should all make accommodation for each other. I just don't think they need to be (or should be, in many cases) legislated.

I'm just for leaving that decision for the individual owners, employees, and customers. I see no reason to give Government the authority to dictate that choice.

BTW- Nope, not Slayer Diablo. This is my only 'nym here.

Please don't help.

The US is a representative republic. Most of the founding fathers loathed democracy.

Benefit of the many, blah blah blah.

The tide has changed from this disgusting habit (CHOICE) being seen as a right to what it should be rightly seen as...

a disgusting habit (CHOICE).

I can't think of one other habit (CHOICE) that the majority of society is FORCED to endure against it's will by a minority. Thankfully, the smoking lobby and the number of smokers is losing numbers and influence.