Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin
Advancing my opinion - the government has been granted the right to impose laws on us by us. If the majority of people find the law acceptable and choose not to act or protest against it, then the majority seems to prove the law correct.
But we DON'T live in a society where popularity is the one and only standard that determines whether a law is just. We DON'T live in a society were anything can be prohibited as long as 51% of the voting public agree. We live in a society where majority rule is definitely a part of the system--a strong part--but where individual rights are also part of the system, and are protected to some degree against, as benzss says, the "tyranny of the majority". If you just think it over a little bit, I'm sure you can come up with all manner of situations where people have certain rights even if the majority of the public don't want them to.

Do you really believe that if a majority of people support a law, that law is automatically just and that's the end of the discussion? Do you really believe that it's okay to criminalize any act that 51% of the populace disapproves of?

Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin
If you are advocating for a laissez-faire style of government, one that doesn't interfere with the rights of property owners (easily skipping over attendant responsibilities, such as health and hygiene), then there is my fundamental disagreement, because I support the right for the government to impose law on private property. This is why things like dog-fighting or drug-creation are illegal on private property as well.
I agree that the government should be able to impose laws on private property; I simply don't think they should be allowed to do it without limitation. And to me, smoking bans in restaurants lie beyond those limitations, since it doesn't hurt anybody against their will or without their knowledge. Dog-fighting isn't at all the same, for obvious reasons (animal cruelty). As for manufacturing drugs on private property... in point of fact, I DO think people should be able to make/grow drugs at home. They should simply be held to the appropriate regulations if they are producing the drugs for anything other than personal use (i.e., if they intend to sell them). Just as it currently is with making your own liquor, for instance.

I wouldn't necessarily say I'm in favor of laissez-faire government in general. I have no problem with the concept of government intervention, where it's necessary to protect people. I just don't think that restaurant smoking bans are necessary to protect people.

Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin
The government has every right to impose laws that have the intention of public safety.
I think the "for the sake of public safety" argument is spurious when it comes to restaurant smoking bans, for reasons that I've already explained in this thread and which I have yet to hear anyone seriously challenge: Exposure to second-hand smoke is something that people CHOOSE to do to themselves, not something that other people inflict on them without their knowledge or consent. I'm all for the government protecting public health, but to me, that means doing things like combating the spread of infectious diseases or other things that cause people to be injured, killed, or made sick against their will and/or without their knowledge. To me, the legitimacy of public safety measures doesn't extend to the prohibition of unhealthy activities which only affect people who willingly and knowingly allow themselves to be affected by them. If it did extend to such activities, wouldn't the government be just as justified in telling people that they can't smoke even in their own homes? Or that they can't eat unhealthy foods? Or that it's a crime for them to not get enough exercise?