|
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Even in a pure capitalist/free-market political system, the governments primary function is to protect the rights to life and to personal property. Since the smoking patrons don't own the premises, they have no property rights to speak of. Second-hand smoke, on the other hand, has been conclusively linked to several life-threatening illnesses, so with properly conducted research (which has indeed been conducted), any government is well-justified in making this law because it protects many people's right to life and does not violate anyone's property rights.
Whether or not you like this law, Jay, you have no constitutional grounds to win this argument with. The key point you seem to be missing is that second-hand smoke directly harms others, and not in a mysterious subtle way like "discrimination" but in a very real and scientifically proven way.
I am fairly certain that removing one wall from an otherwise indoor area is by no means sufficient to keep second-hand smoke off the premises.
It is a GROSS MISINTERPRETATION of the issue to claim that the government is trying to take away your right to smoke outside. The government hasn't changed a damn thing for you personally - it has simply stated that one missing wall doesn't make an area "outdoors" at all, and rightly so, since a large part of that smoke is no doubt going to end up in the "indoor" area. |
Heh. For once I agree with you. Calling a 3-walled room a patio solves nothing.
___________________
I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect.
|
