Originally posted by zenboy:
Originally posted by sigma:
If drunk drivers had sirens and big flashing signs on them that say "I'm a drunk driver move away" we might not have to have a law.



Sure. Good thing all those smokers throughout the decades have had those "My smoke might kill you" neon signs.


Originally posted by sigma:
One does not have the opportunity to go somewhere else and avoid a drunk driver before you are killed. Nor can you politely ask that the drunk driver not drive before you are killed.



How many times have you asked someone to put out their cigarette because you didn't want to breathe their second-hand smoke? Most extend their middle finger, I would imagine. Some would be considerate and comply, but only some. Not all.

Yes, one does have the opportunity to go somewhere else and avoid being killed by a drunk driver. Don't go near a road, off-road path, or body of water, and you won't have to worry about it. Just the same as choosing not to go near anywhere someone might be generating some tasty second-hand smoke.


Originally posted by sigma:
And most importantly, note the difference between government regulating what a people can and cannot do within their own business, and the government regulating what people can and cannot do on government property (roads).



Sure. Better yet, let's note the fact that in both cases, drunk driving and smoking, it's a question of whether or not one person's choices can be allowed to endanger the safety of another person. This is where government performs its function ΓΆβ?¬β?? by helping to establish policies (read: laws) that protect individuals' rights without infringing on other people's rights.





Smoking-ban advocates that engage in the drunk-driving analogy make at best a specious arguement.

The roads are open to some extent to all. ANYONE can legally be a passenger in a motor vehicle on a public road.

This is why the government protects those who are using the roads in the manner intended.

However, NOONE has an ABSOLUTE right to enter private property (i am sure that we can all agree that the US Constitution provides protection from government agents entering private property without just cause and permission from a court, and citizens can be charged under tresspassing laws). A bar or resturant, or other business, may be "open" to the public, but they have a right to refuse service or entrance. I'm sure we all know at least one jerk who was "banned" from a bar.

As long as the property owner is engaged in a legal activity, it is none of your business what that activity is.

Where is the ACLU on this issue? They will back your right to put a porno shop across from a school, but I have yet to hear them stand up for bar and resturant owners who wish to allow the legal activity of adults smoking on their property. Again, liberalism has twisted many minds.

former owner, 95 SE MTX 02 Ford Explorer