Hey, I have never said to take this up where the sun doesn't shine. I have never advocated or recommended to anyone that they should accept things as they are. All I am doing is explaining what the bans are and what their basis is.

I think there is just a bigger market for women only fitness clubs personally. There are men only fitness centers, so there isn't any discrimination there. Kind of like the boys scout vs. girls scout clubs.

Maybe I'm giving you too much credit, but you argue like an attorney, and I'm suspicious of anyone who continues to be polite when other people keep trying to run them off. There's got to be an ulterior motive, or you wouldn't keep exposing yourself to this much flak.

The fact that the case is about prison inmates is important to notw, but still has very little to do with the analysis of the law. Yes, being a prisoner, they have less freedom than someone outside of jail. However, the application of the law and their constitutional rights do not diminish behind bars. The analysis in this case applies to any person in that jurisdiction.

There nothing as bad as a poster that only reads their own posts and uses Wiki as a source.

Methinks there is a poster amongst us that thinks they are far more superior than us churlish smokers. Their posting tones reek of self-righteous superiority.

So Childish!

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

Ayn Rand

You are asking why can't a smoker open a place that allows smokers to eat and or drink? Well, that is exactly what the situation was before the ban, wasn't it? The reason why, is because of the bans obviously. The reason why all bars and restaurants need to be smoke free is to protect the health and safety of all patrons, smoking and non-smoking. It may not sound fair, but technically smokers are part of the non-smoking group. The bans are allowing everyone to enjoy the "clean" air inside without subjecting themselves to exhaled smoke.

How is it that the government had legal standing as suffering injury with respect to the MSA and not the smokers first? In every other class action lawsuit that I know of, when the plaintiffs win, those in legal standing are entitled to the settlement. Why did the settlement go to the governments and unrelated programs like SCHIP and Not the smokers?

From what I can gather, just about this entire thread is being argued on two different levels, you explaining and arguing the in's and out's of how things are and everyone else arguing the injustice of how things are. So if you're wondering why some here are suspect about your motives it is because anti gloats in the way things presently are and they could give two shits about the injustice of it all.

The whole thing needs to be made transparent to the taxpayers. The health cost figures should be made public, and the amount collected should be made public.