[Morgan in Denver]

So I guess you would have also fought the introduction of health inspectors into restaurants. What about all of the food preparation guidelines that must be followed. I suppose that is merely the nanny state imposing its will on the free market?

Silly examples don't work. Food preparation for an unsuspecting public versus the legal right of a business to run their operation as they see fit by allowing a legal activity on the premises. Until you make smoking illegal, you have no right to insist on enforcing the nanny-state on a business.

Regardless, if there were no health inspectors restaurants would be open to law suits if they prepare anything that hurt unsuspecting patrons. As corrupt as many so-called inspectors are you may have a good point.

Smoking is hardly an unknown activity when you walk through the door. One wonders why in the world you would even want to go inside a business that has smoking? Why not just not go there? Is that so hard for you to understand? Are you incapable of making such a decision, meaning which places to patronize and which not?

[metesky]

Regardless, if there were no health inspectors restaurants would be open to law suits if they prepare anything that hurt unsuspecting patrons.

This is what the Constitution envisioned, not smothering regulations. You screw up, you pay the piper, not a bunch of petty bureaucrats eating out our substance.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

What if I told you that almost 70% of voters voted for the constitutional amendment?