I invite you to attempt to defend your claim that someone drinking BEER does not present the potential to endanger the health of another individual. Please define and expound upon what a "healthy" public place is and the government's role in regulating it. Define "suffer." And, finally, please explain this completely nebulous statement by offering other examples to support your argument and define proper depth and breath of claimed responsibility in the means through which it is applied and enforced (I fixed your grammar too): "Any action that someone takes that directly *affects the health and well being of another individual without their consent should not be allowed."
-This should be entertaining-[/QUOTE]
One note on this point
I have asthma - secondhand smoke triggers my asthma and therefore directly inhibits my ability to breathe
Which is a more basic right in your mind - the ability to smoke where desired or the ability to breathe ?
I don't care if someone else damages themselves but I really do like to be able to breathe[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry about your condition. However, should we also ban diesel vehicles, motor boats, restaurants with open grills, people who over-use perfume or cologne (actually, that could be a ban I can get behind) and pollenating plants because they are known to trigger asthma attacks? Of course it's one thing to ban certain things in indoor environments (I love being able to come home from the bar without smelling like an ashtray). But outside, really?




Reply With Quote
