No Smoking laws. GOOD.

"It's more than dumb. It's a crime! Health issues always find their way into the pockets of the tax payer." True, but so does the bill of single mothers on welfare. They have the right to keep having kids, thus increasing the amount we pay in our taxes. Once again, I have nothing against this, but it is still comparable. Shouldn't the mothers consider not having any more children so us tax payers won't pay so much? Of course not. They have the right to as many children as they want. There is no law that expressly prohibits the right to have numerous children, so they can have as many as they want. Smokers can smoke all they want, because it is not expressly prohibited by law. Smoking is a freedom. Freedom is a right. Therefore smoking is a right. Simple logic. "Wrong. We get stuck with the whole bill. When hospitals eat an uncollected bill, that cost gets spread around to the paying customer and insurance companies (raising premiums or reducing payouts)." I apologize, because you are correct. We do pay it all. That, however, does not change my argument and its validity. Whether or not we pay more does not change the fact that removing smoking is infringing on a right. If A then B, if B then C, therefore if A the C. Look it up, it is a valid logical equation. "Again, there is nothing legally wrong with smoking unless the legislature outlaws or restricts it." Exactly, and if legislature outlaws or restricts it it is infringing on the right to freedom. There is nothing, then, that the government can do to smokers without narrowing what the right to freedom means. "Fornication makes me happy. Do I have a right to do that in public?" There are laws against fornication. There are laws expressly prohibiting fornication. There are also decency laws that need be considered. There are none of these laws or the like that have anything prohibiting smoking. So no, you do not have the right to do that in public. "It assumes certain activities can be prohibited by law. So government can deny it." Smoking is a freedom. Freedom is a right. Therefore smoking is a right. The government cannot deny the right to freedom, and cannot therefore deny the freedom to smoke. "Your logic assumes smoking is a right, which it clearly is not. Are you challenging the authority of the legislature to enact no-smoking laws?" Are you encouraging the limitation of freedoms? The government can legally do what they want with things that are not constitutionally protected. Is smoking constitutionally protected? Nope. So yes, they can do what they want with it. That is not what the debate is about though. This debate is on whether on not they SHOULD restrict it, so I come down to my logical equation again: Smoking is a freedom, freedom is a right, therefore smoking is a right. Can they restrict it? Yes. Should they restrict it? Absolutely not. So no, I am not challenging their power to do so, but the wisdom in it and the constitutionality of it. I mean, as long as we are limiting freedoms, why stop at smoking? "Do I have a right not to pay higher taxes to cover smokers and other foolish people engaging in activities of their own free will?" That is a silly question. Of course you do not have the right to stop paying parts of your taxes. Just because you don't like what you are paying for does not mean you don't have to pay it. Smoking is a freedom, refraining from taxes is not. "Moving from one bench to another does not reduce atmospheric second hand smoke. Bars cannot keep smoke from non-smokers. It's impossible." No, but it reduces it and gets you out of the direct smoke. If you are not violently reactive to it, this will help. If you are, go somewhere where they don't allow smoking. "Pursuit of happiness is too broad to allow for specific activity. It would make me happy to strangle Michael Moore, the fat communist anti-American movie producer, but I can't because there are laws against that." If there are no laws against it, and it makes you happy, then it can be considered pursuing happiness. Killing someone, like you said, is illegal, so whether or not you would like to kill someone, you cannot. "But you opened up a whole new set of rights for non-smokers." What? You did not explain, so I don't have a clue what you are talking about. "What? Free speech is protected in the Bill of Rights. Smoking is not." Smoking is a freedom. This country was founded a FREE country, and therefore restricting smoking freedoms would be narrowing the definition of freedom. NOT GOOD. You think no smoking laws are good? Then you think restricting freedoms is good. Just wait till it gets to restricting the freedom to doing something you like to do, then it won't seem so good. "Smokers are rude and are even offended and angered if a non-smoker complains." I know more smokers then I can count on two hands, and none of the are like you describe them. If you ask them to please smoke outside, they say ok. If you ask them not to smoke on your property, they say ok. Now obviously not all smokers are like this, but anyone can be ornery about anything they don't like, so it is not fair to point fingers at people who smoke. "Fortunately, it is now the smokers who must go somewhere else." Like I sais earlier, I hate smoking. I would not mind it if everyone quit smoking tomorrow. It pains me to see liberties being restricted by the government because the majority does not exercise the liberty in question. Lets say there is a restaurant that serves pizza. They are at liberty to sell all the pizza they want, but all of the sudden most people do not like pizza, and some people are allergic to cheese, so the government makes selling pizza illegal. What are the people who like pizza (like me and I would assume you. If you don't like it, just work with me) supposed to do? Well, just get over it, because the majority says so. What the people are forgetting, though, is that selling and eating pizza is a freedom, but because most people don't like it they took the freedom away. It is kind of messed up. The same goes for smoking. It is a freedom, but because most people don't like smoking, they are trying to ban it. It is kind of messed up. My logic stands: Smoking is a freedom, freedom is a right, therefore smoking is a right.