First, hey Dave it’s been a long time since I talked to you, hope all is well. Second I would like to say where I am coming from. I am a semi ex-smoker. I was a regular smoker when I was younger, but now I only smoke a couple times per year. I am also pro smoking ban and anti foie gras ban. It’s probably at least partly a selfish opinion because my wife and I like to eat dinner at the bar and there’s nothing worse than getting your beautiful dinner served to you and then have the guy next to you light up and blow smoke in your face while you try to enjoy it. But back before the ban I wouldn’t complain because it was my choice to sit at the bar. Also, I like foie gras better than I like smoking. Now my opinion: I don’t feel that you can really compare the smoking ban and the foie gras ban due to what is being protected. The smoking ban is an interpretation of the Constitution where it is stated (very paraphrased here) that people have unlimited freedoms as long as they don’t interfere with the freedoms of others. As far as I know, ducks are not protected by the Constitution. The ban on foie gras is based on an ethical feeling that the way that foie gras ducks are raised is cruel. (Not going to get into that debate right now.) On the other hand the second hand smoke argument for the smoking ban is based on the assumption that the smoker’s freedom to smoke is slowly killing the non-smoker and therefore interfering with the non-smoker’s freedom to live. Now the foie gras ban does not imply that it is bad to eat foie gras, but the process of creating foie gras is bad and that if a less cruel approach was found that the raising of foie gras ducks would be condoned. On the other hand, in most places, it is rarely if ever acceptable to kill somebody. I know this is an extreme argument, but I was trying to clarify my opinion the differences rather than argue whether either one is right or wrong.