"I'm no conspiriacy theorist, but ... anti-smoking laws are actually being used to limit the plebs ability to congregate together and discuss issues" Smoking b

"I'm no conspiriacy theorist, but ... anti-smoking laws are actually being used to limit the plebs ability to congregate together and discuss issues" Smoking bans have not pushed people away from pubs, bars, etc. For example, see http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/63.abstract http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/63.abstract : > Some were concerned [comprehensive smoke-free regulations in Ireland] would cause pub patrons to move their smoking and drinking from inside pubs to inside homes. ... Conclusions: Smoking and drinking in the home was not greater in smoke-free Ireland than in the United Kingdom, where there was not a smoke-free law at the time of the survey. These findings add further support to the enactment of comprehensive smoke-free laws, as called for in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control." and at-home smoking rates in England went down after anti-smoking laws went into place ( http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7509/129.3.full http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7509/129.3.full ) so it's not like more people stayed at home to smoke. Moreover, the underlying premise of Starbucks was to be a "third place" to congregate. Who would spend all the political capital to push pro-plebe isolation laws when they are so easily circumvented by someone out to make a profit? For that matter, cars isolate us far more than DUI and anti-smoking laws. A walking neighborhood with its own local bars, parks, and businesses (instead of zoning purity) reduce isolation. And you can't arrested for DUI if you're walking home from the bar. As to your main topic - I quite disagree, but that isn't a topic I want to discuss.