A side issue in a July 2008 thread about the fine Mexican restaurant nearby called El Camino Real.

Begin rant :

Time to go off-kilter and revisit an old favorite topic ...

Drunk Drivers

"Drinkers don't exhale toxins into the air for their fellow humans to "enjoy"."

No, but drunk drivers kill about 17,000 people in the U.S. each year. "On average someone is killed by a drunk driver every 39 minutes." Insignificant, I know, but hey, we invaded a country, maybe two, because "only" 3,000 people died one day back in 2001. We don't need terrorists to wreak havoc on the homeland. We've got plenty of idiot Americans consuming too much alcohol.

Anti-Smoking Dweebs

"I think a more effective way of handling it would be for the non-smokers to carry a bottle of spray cologne/perfume into the bar ..."

Cute, but the intelligent way of handling the issue is for non-smokers to form their own smoke-free bar or restaurant, or does that make too much sense? How about non-smokers making the personal responsibility choice of staying out of a business that allows the use of a product that can be purchased legally, or does that also make too much sense?

If at least 70% of the public does not smoke, where were the entrepreneurs and investors to start their own line of smoke free bars, bowling alleys, and restaurants years ago?

A non-smoker who chooses to patronize or work at a business that allows smoking and then complains about it is more of an imbecile than the person smoking.

Pro-Choice

Pro-choice means a lot of things, such as choosing where to send a child to school, choosing to own a firearm, choosing to have an abortion, choosing to marry whomever you want, choosing to suck on cancer sticks, and choosing to scarf down bushels of junk food.

Pro-choice is also a business owner deciding to allow or not allow the use of a product that ban be purchased legally. Pro-choice is a customer deciding on his or her own to enter or not enter a business. But I guess smoking ban proponents are too stupid and feeble to make these decisions on their own, so they need someone to do it for them.

Smoking ban proponents argue that their personal space is invaded by second-hand smoke, yet the smoking ban proponents apparently are unable to make the personal choice of simply avoiding private businesses that permit smoking.

Incomplete People

And smoking ban proponents are incomplete individuals because if they were truly concerned about the health of people, they would work to ban the sale of junk food, and they would work to make the sale of tobacco illegal. But, of course, we can't outlaw tobacco because the government makes too much money from the taxes on tobacco sales.

If banning smoking is about lowing health care costs for everyone, then that same thinking needs to be applied to junk food. Reasons why we need junk food bans and junk food sin taxes.

Unanswered Questions

Smoking ban proponents can't debate the issue with logic. They rely on emotion. They can't answer simple questions about private businesses, like bars, restaurants, and bowling alleys :

• Why didn't you or someone else start a smoke-free business that targets 70% of the market?
• What prevented you from choosing to avoid a business that allows smoking?
• Can't you think of other activities to do besides wanting to patronize businesses that allow smoking?

It's scientifically and sociologically mystifying why the smoking ban proponents cannot choose to ignore business that allow smoking.

Smoking ban proponents will make mentally weak statements like, "I can finally go to a bar without my eyes burning and my clothes smelling like cigarette smoke."

A person like that is obviously devoid of creativity and real interests.

Or, "All my friends go there, so I did too."

Your friends are rubes. Are you just a follower? Find a hobby besides going to bars. It's easy to avoid tobacco smoke if you have a shred of intelligence.

Mobocracy

Voting to ban smoking in private businesses. Voting to ban same-sex marriage. Got to love the mob rule of mobocracy.