ok, this is the last i'll comment on this on-list...any future
discussions about it I will take off-list and continue in personal
one-on-one emails....but for the record:


> >It's *not* in their best economic interest to do this, so you won't
> >convince them to do it on their own.  Hence, gov't intervention is
> >necessary in this type of situation.
> 
> There's a word for that philosopy: Socialism, or taken to its extreme,
> Communism.

what are you talking about?  It is neither.  I'm not saying the State
should take over running a bar/club.  I'm not saying the Government
should invoke eminent domain and seize this property.  I'm saying the
state should step in from a health care perspective and prevent people
from smoking and, subsequently, harming other individuals in concert
venues/bars/clubs.

By your definition, the fact that the FDA mandates what drugs can and
can't be sold in the USA is equal to "socialism, or taken to its
extreme, communism."  If Pfizer has a drug that they know doesn't really
work, but yet they make money from it, why is it in their best economic
interest to stop selling it?  Its not...you need the gov't to step in
and set things straight for the good of its people.  Just like in the
case of smoking in bars.


> Government intervention into whether a business allows a 
> legal activity to take place on its premises is rarely necessary.

gee, you'd have fit in perfectly with that Waco crowd.