Replies

I know a few people here are, in fact, smokers. That doesn’t make them necessarily wrong, but it does open then up to criticism as to their motivation. Perhaps it isn’t deserved. There are many very good arguments against such bans, to me the most important of which is that it could potentially set precedent.

You bring up an interesting list. Many of your points I agree with (salt, light bulbs, trans fats, and so on). One, at least, I don’t - at least not entirely. My wife and I have both been hit by people talking on cell phones and apparently in a totally different world. Certainly, there are people who can’t drive worth a lick even if they’re totally focused, and there are people who can drive just fine while on a cell phone. However, the people I notice driving like idiots (and there are a ton in this area) have about a 95% chance of talking on a cell phone. I think that people talking on cell phones while driving can be far more dangerous than smokers.

This goes back to an earlier point I made about the people deciding rather than the government. Ask the voters a question about salt and trans fats, and most people are going to tell the government to stick it and get out of my kitchen. Ask the voters if they want to punish people for talking on cell phones while driving, I’d bet about 95% of the people who drive will immediately think of people who cut them off or almost hit them while talking on cell phones. I don’t necessarily have a problem with most “bans” on things like this at nothing bigger than state level (I’d prefer local) if a supermajority voted for it and there is a compelling reason to do so (that’s the tricky part). Most of the things here fall under those rules - there’s no chance 67% of people would vote to ban trans fats. (This does require the presupposition that people are generally intelligent.)

I know a few people here are, in fact, smokers.

Actually, you don't, unless you know them personally. I personally know many of the people on this thread and know whether they are smokers or not. I have also known many anti-smokers (a different breed than non-smokers) who have gotten on message boards and forums and posted as "smokers" in order to discredit the smokers by being absolutely over the top jerks.

You make many good points, but once again I must ask you a question in regard to this type comment:

This goes back to an earlier point I made about the people deciding rather than the government.

What right do you, as a potential patron, have to determine the clientele of a business you do not own?

You seem to agree with voter referendum on how a business is conducted, would you agree with a referendum that determined seafood could not be served in restaurants, after all thee are many people with (possibly life threatening) allergies to seafood?

Cell phone laws, I repeat, are just to collect fines. If you and your wife were hit by someone driving recklessly, that person is already at fault. Writing more laws is just stupid.

Do we need a new law for each and every little thing someone might do behind the wheel
that will cause them to break an already in existence law? Do we really need a law against kids in the car? Switching channels on the radio? Come on, if someone does any of these things and it causes them to drive recklessly, they should be pulled over and ticketed for reckless driving. NOT for..........oh say picking their nose.