Smoking Bans in the United States

You have made several fallacies in your argument. 1) //Smoking doesn't have a chance of hurting you. IT DOES.// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A quick review of the statistics reveals you're mistaken with this assumption. Out of the hundreds of millions of people who are surrounding by second hand smoke each year in the United States, according to an EPA study, only 3,000 of them will die each year due to second hand smoke. Your rational that second hand smoke will inevitably hurt everyone who is in its presence is clearly false, otherwise the number killed by second hand smoke would be hundreds of millions. Obviously, second hand smoke doesn't necessarily hurt anyone, even though it could hurt a small percentage. Compared with various other risks second hand smoke is relatively mild. Automobile accidents kill 40,000 people per year; household chemicals kill 17,000 people per year; Obviously, you would never support a ban on automobiles or household cleaners. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2) //The activities you listed are risks only to the person involved. It is their choice to take the risk. Smoking (like I said before) hurts everyone around. It is a personal choice that is harmful to the health of others. I dont wanna lose 8 years off of my life because people around me were too inconsiderate to smoke somewhere where others cant take in the second hand smoke.// Your fallacy with this remark is typical among smoking-ban activists. You accept no responsibility for choosing a smoking bar, restaurant, or hotel. By walking into an establishment that allows smoking you are making the choice to accept the risk of second hand smoke. Sure, the smoke may hurt you, or simply irritate you, but it was your choice to enter the establishment. If you wish to avoid being "harmed" by second hand smoke, you should either stay home or choose a non-smoking establishment. Similarly, a football player cannot complain when he gets hit by a 380 lbs. lineman because by stepping on the football feild he accepted the associated risk. The same goes for bars and restaurants. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are correct that a MAJORITY rules in a democracy, but only for PUBLICALLY owned property and the law of the land; however, there are various rules that the MAJORITY must obey in order to protect the rights of all individuals, including individuals who own bars and restaurants. Rights are exactly what prevent the MAJORITY from restricting your freedom of religion or your freedom of speech and your property rights. Property rights are the cornerstone of democratic government and a free society and cannot be violated by the preference of the majority. The proprietor reserves the right to choose whether he allows smoking on his property, regardless of what the MAJORITY wants. Why? because that is his property. Understandably, most people prefer a smoke-free environment. What most pro smoking-ban collectivists don't understand is that the free market is the most efficient in delivering their needs. If the majority of a free society wishes a particular commodity to be a certain way, in order for the capitalist to make the most money he will be forced to comply; otherwise he will fail and go out of business. In that respect, the majority does rule, but not by force in the case of government sanctions. The consumers of a particular commodity dictate the decisions of the producer; because, after all, the producer is interested, almost entirely, in making money. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just out of curiosity, do you find this quote of Thomas Jefferson acceptable. Judging by your infatuation with the majority rule you do. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."