[jmc813]

Why shouldn't the majority of people in your town be able to decide if smoking will be allowed in public places?

I personally feel that property rights take precedence over public opinion. For instance, would you be cool with a particular city declaring itself a "gun free" city, and banning guns in peoples homes?

[cinFLA]

I personally feel that property rights take precedence over public opinion.

Seems like you do believe that it should be legal to use cocaine on one's own, or with the permission of the properties owner.

[TKDietz]

"I personally feel that property rights take precedence over public opinion. For instance, would you be cool with a particular city declaring itself a "gun free" city, and banning guns in peoples homes?"

No, such a ban would be an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment, and I would think it would violate privacy rights. There is a big difference between regulating what goes on in people's homes and what goes on in public places. What goes on in your home is your business. What goes on in the public is everybody's business.

Personally, I think local ordinances banning smoking in public places are a little harsh. I would think that local businesses should at least be given the option of investing in high quality ventilation systems designed to minimize the levels of smoke in the establishment. I am also of the mind that those who don't want to inhale smoke should stay the heck out of smokey places, then there wouldn't need to be any smoking bans and the free market would dictate whether these places that allow smoking will stay open. But still I am not opposed to communities passing laws governing conduct that affects people in their community. That is perfectly acceptable in a free and democratic society.