I was under the false impression that Amit had switched things to the Federal level. I guess the “Constitutional” question made me think he was going state rights vs. Federal exercise of power. You did take advantage of the confusion. Points for that one. I Disagree that the states can superced creator given rights. Not that we really live in a constitutional republic anymore. Everyone seems to disregard it.

While causing other problems, legalizing drugs would NOT help terrorist. Legalization would destroy the profit in the drug trade. If anything you just argued FOR legalization!

I adore Reagan. However, I don’t agree with EVERYTHING he did. I do maintain he was exceptional and was good for the country. (waiting for Democrats to jump in and change the subject to Reagan)

Lastly, pursuing freedom does not entail blowing smoke literally in your face. That would possibly be assault even in a smoke filled bar. If you were to immerse yourself in after entering a smoke allowed business, that is you consenting to the conditions. The circle continues.

Staying free of cancer or emphysema? Guilty.

In fact, maybe you can visit some victims of those in the future and tell them the free market was well on its way to solving the problem.

As I pointed out in the post, Longwood University did a study that clearly showed the free market was well on the way to marginalizing smoking in restaurants.

The natural course of economics was well on its way to working. There were and are more than enough non-smoking alternatives for the consumer.

Instead, with no real political reason, Republicans handed Gov. Kaine a gift.

Methinks you are “representing” special interests with your comments rather than your own personal opinion.

Reason dictates that this was a non-issue.

If you’d like to talk about Obama’s appointees, the “drug war” for which legalization as an answer is akin to giving terrorists a tax credit for bombs, or your constitutional attack on Ronald Reagan for raising the drinking age to 21, be my guest.

And I doubt the founders thought the “pursuit of happiness” meant blowing smoke in my face.

Does the fact that Obama is hiring tax cheats to high profile positions make tax law arguements spurious since, it obviously doesn’t seem to be a problem?

I’m not sure I want the answer to that.

Ok, let’s try again.

Spurious, Brian?
Just because the drug war is losing badly and…….nah….hold on.

Spurious, Brian?
Just because only some speeders violating the law are caught, does that make the speed limit law spurious. The law being being spurious, really it is just one of the legalized forms of gambling where the best you hope for is to break even “except paying gas taxes” and otherwise the “House always wins” (tickets). Should we just have no laws on the road? Or is it not a law at all but, a form of taxation?

Much like “Squatters Rights” , if we can prove that smokers continue to smoke at bars and restaurants despite the ban, would that make the ban and agruements to not smoke in restaurants due to said ban, spurious?

I would echo Amit but, also put forth the question as to at what age in the US, does a person become a true adult or “competent party” capable of entering into contracts. If 18 is that age then I would agree that to be unconstitutional on those grounds. If 18 is the age where one gains an incremental responsibility/rights then it gets blurry and perhaps not. Then I would have to yield to Amit’s agruement for unconstituitonality.

Well, many Housing and Redevelopment Authorities, city councils, and even the Supreme Court in Kelo vs. New London have proven that there is a spurious relationship between property rights mentioned in the Constitution/Bill of Rights and real life. At least the Commonwealth of Virginia got something right and disagreed. THANK God for the Dillon Rule!!!!!

Rule of law? What is that? We don’t live under that! Might does make right here. We get tyranny of the majority powersharing with elected feudal chieftains.

Perhaps you are right, Brian. However, in my “La-La Land” “Pie in the Sky” vision of America, I will insist that we SHOULD be living according to the Constitution/Bill of Rights and the “Rule of Law”. We’re not but, we should be in my idealistic reasoning.

Well, in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of *****Happiness*****.”

I will at some point today drink a beer. I will also borrow a cigarette. Since I’m a non-smoker, I will likely cough profusely and experience a strong niotine buzz. Perhaps I’ll ask my future bride for what used to be a “Bob McDonnell” felony…even return the favor.

After being forced to reckon with the fact that we are not protected by the Constitution and Rule of Law, I have become stressed I must find SOME way to “pursue happiness”!

and they do have “whites only” restaurants. I think its called Cracker Barrel

Who was it that admonished whom for comparing racism to an issue in a previous thread posting and is doing it now? Oh, that would be Brian admonishing me then for what he’s doing now.

Yes, it is a property issue.
1)No individuals are prohibited from establishments allowing smoking
2)There is no discrimination in commerce either
3) Your pretending not to know the difference between apples and oranges will continue to allow for your endless arguements until we tire of pointing out said differences.
4)What would you “point out to Steve” as to govt. dictates forced on restaurants? Taxes? Child labor laws? Reasonable Health regulations? The purpose of government is to protect the idividual from Force and Fraud. When you go to buy a steak that is infested by bacteria, the restaurant has made a representation that his food is not going to cause you a bad case of botulism/hepatitis etc. etc. If it does cause you harm, that amounts to fraudulent representation and damages for which the restaurant must pay. THAT is why there is laws and regulation. NOT tyranny of the majority and NOT “might makes right”, the govt. being the mighty.
5) Yes, you do consent to risk upon entering a smoke allowed facility. You also take risk standing at the bus stop as car/truck/semi/bus exhaust spews by you, the pedestrian, as they drive by.
6)As smoking is becoming less common (due to market forces!) and the possibility of a smokey enviornment might not be as expected, I would agree that the posting of a sign out front, as to state smoking is permitted, would be reasonable regulation. The public must be able to reasonably make informed consent.

Mr. Kirwin, you as a conservative are saying the smoking ban being imposed by force is a good thing?

THANK YOU for listing the names of those “who stood for liberty.” I’ve been looking for this list for a while. Great work bringing attention to this issue.

Little by little our liberties are taken away, and I say that as a complete non-smoker.

Instead of a private business being able to run their establishment as they wish, the government is going to tell them how to run it.

Instead of adults being given the choice to live their lives as they choose, the government is going to tell them how to live it.

Slowly but surely, liberty in Virginia slips away.

And smoking bans in restaurants are no more a property rights case than segregation was. Are you going to argue that a restaurant owner should be able to have a whites-only restaurant too, or is it just smoking that violates his “property rights.”

Besides, I thought YOU were the “Far Right Wing” guy. I’ve seen people on here call you that. Seen others call you “Far Left” and “Socialist” as well. All the name calling gets confusing.