Someone is reaching....

Too bad the restaurants up there haven't figured out how to make sweet tea.

You already did.

I can't speak for him but I believe that what Mr. Havelock has been advocating is little to no government regulation. Let the public make their own choices with their dollars, regardless of the consequences and keep the government out of private business.

That sounds great to me. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of people in this nation aren't responsible and personal responsibility has gone the way of the Wholly Mammoth.

Then let the personally irresponsible go the same way.

LMAO "Whatever would we do without the government to protect us?!" I'll tell you what would happen. Consumer groups would emerge and give us the same information for a cheaper price tag. People would make their choices with their money, the end.

Darwinism at its most practical, imo.

I'm Ok with this.

In order to be Ok with this, though, you have to be prepared to watch people starve to death. You have to be able to bear the images of people lying, sick and dying, with no medical care.

I'm ready. I know very few people that can/would deal with that, though.

Apparently you don't. Pity, I can't spell it out any more plainly for you. It must be the same problem I have understanding a mind-set that's "too busy" to take personal responsibility for the food you eat, places you go, etc. Two very different world-views that are simply incompatible.
I didn't say that, or even allude to it. In a perfect world, maybe. This isn't. As such, I realistically move to acceptance of a MINIMUM of regulation. I'll take this as another of your "I can't specifically address the points you made, so I'll just dismiss it by vastly exaggerating what you said" posts. That's OK. You've proved several times in this thread that's "how you roll".
It's be nice, but there's a reason the word "Utopia" was chosen for the "perfect place". ;)
Already addressed previously. See my previous comments about the necessity of an independent "review" as Private industry (or the FDA itself for that matter) may not be sufficently independent to perform that role. Within our current system, I'd rather see a double-check system with the FDA and an independent private group.
As you said, no shit, Sherlock. IMO, largely because of folks who encourage a mindset of abdicating personal responsibility because they don't have the time, or are too lazy.
If I found one, why would I fu*k it up by inviting a busybody like you? You'd just come in and start pushing for the same crap. In a couple of generations, it'd be just like here with people whining about how they are too busy and it's too hard to take responsibility for themselves.

Huh. Maybe you are beginning to understand. It's not an "absolute" by any means, but in my case a decent guiding ideal. In short, a minimum of regulation, but not necessarily "none".
Really? Because it's what you've been arguing against for almost 10 pages. That's a damn odd way of showing how "great" you think something is, IMO.
So by all means, lets continue to feed that sickness. :shake:

Rather or not they are ready, it is coming. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it is coming.

Busybody?

Dude, you have NO idea who am or how "active" I am but you'd probably be surprised to learn that at heart, I am a Libertarian.

But thanks for engaging in this conversation.

Are you blind? Do you not know the difference between the words Restaurant and Bar?

And the bars will not have problems either if all the communities around them are smoke free also, which is where we are headed at in this area.

1. If smoking in public buildings were allowed, all non-smoking employees, residents, clients, etc. of that building would be exposed to the negative health consequences of second hand smoke. Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

2. Long term health affects are not the only health affects caused by smoking. Aside from heart disease and lung cancer, children are especially susceptible to the affects of second hand smoke. In children, it is known to be a cause of respiratory tract infections, middle ear infections, and increases in the number and severity of asthmatic episodes. It is associated with increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome, as well.

Aside from the underappreciated fact that more people will actually frequent smoke-free establishments in large numbers, there are many other reasons that businesses are prospering after going smoke-free:

1. It's a safer and MORE PRODUCTIVE workplace.

2. Decreased health, life, and fire insurance costs.

3. Lower risk of accidents and decreased cleaning and maintenance costs.

4. The prevention of illness among nonsmoking employees and customers.

Plus, it has been shown that smokers ultimately accept and adjust to smoke-free policies. In other words, they just go outside. And that is what anyone who respects others would do without complaining.

IMO, it's all about respect.

Yes, I do know the difference. That's why I read "restaurants" in your post, and keyed "bars" in mine.

I do not know of any restaurants that have been put out of business by the ban. I do know of bars that have been.

I'm glad that even a twit like you knows the difference as well.

Except when it inconveniences you. Got it.