And here is where you fail.
I openly disagree with you?
they are already banning smoking everywhere. Heck private buesnesses cant even make their won rules. If a bar wants to allow smoking so be it. Why do the gov have to say no to it? people that are bothered by smoking are not forced to patron those said bars.
And nobody will be forcing smokers to smoke in those same bars. So what's the problem? You are still thinking that it is OK to prohibit people from patronising whatever bar they want by allowing other people to harm them in those bars at will.
Why wouldn't government have a say in that?
Now Look I will admit that public ran gov areas cant have smoking bans. But once your in open air and not in a gov ran building then its fair game. Take away more of our rights. Its not illegal... but people that think the gov telling when we can or can not do that is legal ... that is where I draw the line
No, it's not fair game. There is no right to harm other people against their will. Smokers do NOT have such a privilege. Your entire argument is based on your assumption that everybody agrees that, for smokers, harming other people is OK. It is not and I refuse to compromise on that point.
Plus your advoiding the big question... what will gov do when the money from cigs runs out? where are they going to get that money..you know full well that they are not going to cut that spending out
I assume that the same money now spent on tobaco and tobaco taxes will eventually be spend on other products and those taxes. Are you assuming that smokers will simply burn their money if they don't spend it on tabaco taxes any more? They won't.
Their money will instead flow into other areas of the economy and all those areas are taxed. Once the resources now spent on producing cigarettes are invested into other, more productive, parts of the economy, the entire economy is likely to benefit.
But then nobody is saying that smoking should be illegal. I don't think government has (or should have) the power to make it illegal for people to do whatever they want to their own bodies.
It's when it affects other people against their will that I draw the line.
And my patronising a public house does NOT, repeat NOT, constitute my agreement that you or anybody else is allowed to harm me. Any argument based on the assumption that _I_, not the person intending to harm me, but _I_, can go elswewhere, ignores the basic issue; which is that you and I have the RIGHT not to be harmed by another person without our consent and that you and I do NOT have the right to harm another person without their consent.
I open no dorrs by insisting that I have a right not to be harmed, except in such a way that if we agree that I have such a right now, we might have to agree that I have such a right in future too.
You, on the other hand, by arguing that certain types of harm are legitimate because X (and I don't know what that X is), are opening the doors to allowing more types of harm. And I know you didn't even understand the problem by comparing it to eating junk food.
But as I said before, I am not harmed by sitting next to someone who eats unhealthy food. I am harmed, however, by sitting next to someone who smokes or shoots me.
He can eat what he wants, smoke what he wants if I don't have to breath the stuff, and shoot himself if he so chooses.
But he must not force me to eat what I don't want to eat, make me breath what the poison he decided I must endure, or shoot me.