Actually, OSHA recently dismissed its indoor air quality proposal after a 12 year long process. Apparently it isn't that serious of a hazard.

Hurray! Oh, yeah...I don't smoke.

Now let's take on those pesky environmental germs.

And you will give up drinking? Eating sweets? Driving Cars (which by the way contains the Internal Combustion Engine, known as the deadliest consumer product in the history of the world)

Try answering questions. This after all is a debate, or is your position so weak that you have to fallback on these tactics?. Of course we already know the answer, don't we......

Caring about myself is My buisines, you caring how I care about myself is called "busybody"



No you don't have anyone shoving food down your throat. That would be force, and against the law. If you follow this to a logical conclussion (geez logic, go figure), no one FORCES you to open the door to a facility that has a sign on it that says "smoking in designated areas". Follow YOUR OWN logical path will ya!



You have a slight problem with LOGIC. If the smoker wishes to inhale it, he may. If the drinker wishes to drink it (even though it is toxic and even flamable) he may.

Here's the LOGIC, now try to follow. All men have the right to self determination. Want to inhale second hand smoke, in a building that a person INVESTED in and allows smoking, then enter, don't want to, then don't. The right to self determination only works if the individual with that right EXERSIZES IT!



I have a Mother thank you, but if I ever need another one, I will send you an application.



Spoken like a true Radical extremist.

P.S.S. I know when a debater is getting desperate when he never addresses direct question.....Sorry to have to point that out.



Your logic would want it banned. Curious why you would think that alcoholics (those that consume alcohol) would abide by a raising or lowering of "a limit" when historically they never have? Double standard perhaps? Naw, thats not logical, is it?



Cool, who gets to make up the list? Peanuts, fatty lunchmeats, perfumes, after shaves, perfumed toilet paper, cat dander, they can all kill people.



Oh, Liberty. Actually, if the owner of the bar WANTS you to fire of fireworks he CAN build the building, or remodel it such away to allow for it. He, however has the duty to insure that it meets City, Local or applicable standards for this type of activity since, after all, it IS a restaraunt and WE ARE talking about the OWNERS RIGHTS on this matter, not THE PATRONS. Guns can be carried into any restaraunt or bar in municipalities that allow citizens TO CARRY WEAPONS. Of course the owner can exclude them also.

Funny, in away you killed your own argument. The patron, knowing that fireworks are being fired in the bar (see: Rock acts playing in small venues), may choose not to enter.....


Well good night guys.

The right to "self determination" supercedes all others. Without it we become pawns of the Government. That is what the 14th amendment is all about.....

Logic, ya gotta love it!

I think most of the comparisons on this topic between smoking and other public health issues (drinking, fast food, uv sun rays[what?]) cannot be justified - being that smoking is the ONLY issue here that does not only harm yourself, but people around you. Drinking is your choice. Eating unhealthy foods is your choice. Neither of those affects anyone else besides yourself. With that said, it should not be stated as a public health issue, but a personal health issue. And hey, if you dont like the sun... thats your choice too

Another question that could be brought up is if a group of people were in a public place, and a person decides to light up, who is at fault? Should the non-smokers choose to inhale the smoke or go someplace else, or should the smoker be forced to put out his/her cigerette(sp?) or go someplace else and continue to smoke it?

Then I have nothing more to add. (Except for the fact that it was deadly enough for an Australian barmaid to develop throat cancer and an Australian court to support the claim, but, hey, can't argue with the OSHA. )

Anyway, it was about time. This was getting tedious. Thanks, madam. I don't even know why I'm debating this. I very rarely even visit one of these establishments.



Actually, it's not a double standard. First of all, research should be conducted as to when alcohol effects the imbiber's ability to drive. I did say research should be conducted to see if smoke constitutes a serious enough threat. Second of all, not everyone who drinks alcohol also drives afterwards. (In fact, in AU, if someone is too intoxicated, the watering hole is duty bound to arrange some transport to pick you up and drop you off. Yes, I'm aware that Australia isn't America, you won't need to inexplicably point it out yet again.) There are still other methods, like those things that prevent a car from starting if you have too much to drink. If, somehow, you could have a set standard of ventilation that alleviates most/all of the dangers of smoking for longtime employees, we wouldn't need a ban.



Instead of being snide, you may have looked over what I wrote and seen links and quotes from your very own OSHA organisation. They "make up the list". Take it up with them. Regardless, it has apparently already revealed its ineptitude by dismissing an indoor air proposal. It's a moot point now.



Actually, you only killed two badly unresearched examples from an Australian teenager who couldn't think of better and is still confused as to how smoking could, beyond a shadow of a doubt, be covered under such a nebulous statement as "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Good job.

I don’t smoke but I also don't drive. Given the choice between sitting in a garage with someone smoking constantly for an hour or sitting in the garage with someone revving their car engine I'd choose the smoker every time.

Cars do far more damage to mine and everyone else’s environment yet the research and commitment to alternative fuel sources seems to be shrinking while the sales of huge gas guzzling SUV’s are growing. There are lots of health hazards in everyday life and I have to say second hand smoke doesn't worry me too much. Just give them an area of the bar with a few extractor fans nearby and let it be. If not then make it illegal. While it is not illegal I don't believe its right to discriminate against them.

You may indeed "think" this, but the "facts" do not bear this out. Alcohol is a fantastic comparable simply because it is "primary product" sold in bars, and a "secondary product" sold in restaurants. Most people DRIVE to these places, and by doing so, endanger the public when they leave.

Here's the "kicker". To ingest ETS means you must exercise your right to SELF DETERMINATION. So you can not say that you are being harmed by another when YOU volunteer to be in one of these facilities! YOU CHOOSE TO INHALE ETS.




You defeat your own argument, after all, if you don't like ETS, then you can CHOOSE not to be around it.

The child riding his bike, hit by a drunken driver can not make that choice. His rights to "self determination" are FORCED from him. Such force does not occur in the "ban" debate.



Not really applicable to this debate. The facilities that we are speaking of are buildings owned by Private individuals or Entities that have the Right, under the 4th amendment to decide how to run them. If you determine to enter one, you abandon some rights by walking through the door.

But lets say you are in a Park, and someone "lights up". Your rights still exist. You could kindly ask the person to quit (happens all the time), you can move, or you can stay. That is the right of self determination. Do you really think someone else, or a government body need to do this for you?

Admin:

were you talking to me. I have attempted to make my comments, based on the 14th amendment and the Citizens right to self determination.

Am I off base? If so, then I am sorry

Please let me know.

No, you're cool, redliner. Thanks for asking.

Redliner,

Per Jaime's warning, I will have to save my reaction to your
ad hominems and weak analogies for another thread....

There are a few private businesses that should have
the right to cater to nicotine addicts and cigarette junkies.
Those would be bars, bowling alleys, mental hospitals, pool halls,
casinos and Bunny Ranches.

The other businesses should be forced to ban smoking because it is
a health hazard and smokers are in the minority in terms of population.
Do what is best for society as a whole.

Allowing people to smoke in one's establishment is not benefitting
society as a whole, therefore the bans should be put into effect pretty
much across the boards (with a few exceptions).

I'll trade in my SUV for a bicycle if smokers will stop being arrogant,
demanding fresh-air murderers.

A lot of things do not benefit society as a whole. The Constitution protects individual rights. No one should be coerced into benefitting society. Once again, the issue is not smoking. The issue is private property rights. Considering that the claims of harmful effects from second hand smoke are very disputable there is no legitimate state interest in banning smoking in PRIVATE businesses. Yes, the Constitution does protect private property from arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions.

The individual has the right to enter, or not enter an establishment. A business owner usually has an economic motive to keep a non-smoking area relatively smoke free in order to increase business. I cannot recall the last time I was bothered by smoke in a non-smoking area of a restuarant. This is another unconstitutional attack on the rights of PRIVATE PROPERTY.

In America, bars has been around for many years, and smoking is part of the culture in the bars. To take that away would be to take away the sense of tradition.

They're stripping us of our rights slowly, just like dominoes in slow motion.

Yet you make exactly zero attempt to prove my analogies wrong.

What is wrong with this picture?

Here's what is wrong with it. YOU CAN'T, so you simply say it is so. It doesn't work that way......



The right indeed. Dang, thats America fer ya



I appreciate your passion on this issue, believe me I do. But who decides what is and what isn't dangerous. Assigning a name to that question is probably the greatest dangerous.



Sorry you think that, then invest in a Restaraunt or bar, and the same Constituion that protects us against the government enforcement of smoking bans, will also protect you against the government insisting you allow smoking.

WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY



The internal combustion engine is credited with Hurricanes, famine and deaths that make any other consumer product seem puny by comparision.

Show your leadership and not only sell this death machine, but destroy it, after all, selling it just makes it YOUR "second hand" killing machine.

Hows it feel to be called a Killer?

Mrs. P: I never said that the gov't should do that, that's a sliperry slope. The difference between fat and smoking is that smoking affects people around you, eating a Big Mac doesn't.

CP

I am sorry to interupt, but in fact a ban on smoking, using the logic of increasing the availability, increases the risk (MADD, ObesityUSA, the CDC and the American Cancer Society) all use this theory, will increase the death rate caused by obesity. Increase food availablity by 10%, you add 30,000 obesity deaths.

Every action does have a reaction.

The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they protected the INDIVIDUALS rights to "self determination"

The true risk occurs when someone NAMES those riks. Does a Democrat want George Bush naming it? In turn would a Rebublican want Bill Clinton naming the risks.

I think not allow smoking in establishments is not unconstitutional because there are people in eating establishments that wish to enjoy a meal without smelling smoke from the guy either next to them or the smoke that lingers from the "smoking" section. Also, there are some resteraunt goers who have asthama, and the smoke can basically kill their oxygen capabilites.

Because I don't like it is not a reason to change the Constitution.

An asthma sufferer has the same right to "self determination" that someone who is deathly allergic to Cat Dander has when standing in front of a pet store. Turn and walk away. Are we ready to ban little furry kitties from Pet stores on the off chance that someone, with this type of allergy, might walk in?

Just a thought to pass out. To become a smoker one must take a lighter or a match and light a cigerette. by walking into a restaurant that allows smoking, doesn't a customer, by default, become a smoker?

I'm a former smoker who currently prefers to go to smoke free restaurants. I say let the marketplace sort it out, there are enough non-smokers (and enough people who don't really care one way or the other) to support those businesses who go smoke free, I've seen it in my home town- no government involvement necessary.

I have shown you that comparing second-hand smoke with over-eating
and over-drinking is not valid because over-eating and over-drinking are
things that affect an individual only, not the innocent bystanders.

If I eat 3 Big Macs it's not going to affect the person sitting next to me.
If I drink in excess it will not physically affect the people around me
(and don't even try to bring in the "what if the drunk gets in his car and
runs someone over")...

You said something about if the smoking ban is imposed more people will
eat and drink, etc. Your hypothetical prediction is just that - hypothetical....

I'm not saying you don't have the right to smoke.
I'm saying, WE shouldn't have to breathe second-hand smoke!!
GOT IT?????

By the way, ironically, I just found out today that my great-aunt and uncle
just passed away within two weeks of each other. My uncle died of lung
cancer (smoked for 30 years). His wife died two weeks later of emphysema.
She didn't smoke a day in her life, but lived with a smoker.
And you say second-hand smoke isn't dangerous!!
Tell that to my dead aunt (may she rest in peace).

Furthermore, my dad is an avid smoker, and has been for 25 years.
I've never told him to quit. I respect his right to do what he wants.
But, there is a time and a place for everything....

Smoking doesn't need to be done in a place where non-smokers will be
adversely affected. Hence, the need for smoking bans in most privately
owned businesses that the mainstream public patronizes.

I've already given my list of acceptable exemptions (bars, brothels,
bowling alleys, shooting galleries, etc.)

I'm looking into getting rid of my SUV. I'll need someone to chauffer me around
though. Will you have time to do that with your horsedrawn buggy, Mr. Environmentalist!!!!

No, all you have shown is that your arguments don't work. I am the one that has detailed how the arguments DO work in my favor, using both the Constitution and the anti smoking advocates OWN LOGIC.



I will bring up drunk driving. Alcohol, through it's intoxicating nature numbs the senses. It's second hand function, drunk driving, kills without the participants being in the environment of it's consumption. Again, and please attempt to answer A QUESTION, what is the more dangerous, one that is controllable in nature, or one that exhibits it's uncontrollability?

Obesity is a bit different, but, the Government with a mandated ban on smoking increases the availability and the time spent around food. If the anti-smoking advocates are correct a 10% increase should be realized, adding 30,000 deaths to this category. Congratulations, you may actually kill more then you save. But fat people don't count, their lives are less important then your.



Funny, it's not my prediction, it is the prediction of the anti-smoking advocates of these bans.

Oh, and the ETS stats........PREDICTIONS! RLMAO



And the Constitution backs that up. Don't want to inhale it, simply turn from the door. It really is just that simple. Want a governing body to make that decision for you?



I am saddened at your loss. Please accept my sympathy. I lost both of may parents within the last 2 years also.

Self determination is a tough thing, it produces both good and sometimes bad results. I don't mean to diminish your loss, but if your Uncle did not want to smoke, he did not have to, and if your aunt did not want to be around it, she didn't either. If they died in a Car Accident going to Walmart, is it the Auto Industry that is to blame, or Walmart?



Why?



Doesn't need? Neither does drinking I suppose. The 14th Amendment allows the owner of the establish these rules, not us.



And I would agree with that, except that it still voids the princibles of the 14th amendment and the business owners rights to his property.



Mutually exclusive thinking here. I am not an environmentalist, in fact, if it were up to me we would be drilling in Alaska already! Seems that you can't handle what you ask the smoker to?

Why not "pony up" Mister "If it's bad, ban it". Show your Leadership......

I have not read this entire thread because I am lazy...but to be pain in the ______.

What about over drinking while pregnant? That effects innocent bystanders...yes? Is there any laws for this? Because fetal alcohol syndrome is not a happy thing.

Also what about eating crap food all your life and passing this genetic beginnings on to your children and their children. Meaning that when a female child is in utero the mother's genetic material is used to create that female's eggs which in return will create her children and her children and onwards. They have studies that they did on I believe it was Norwegian women? who suffered and whose children suffered great starvation during the Nazi occupation of their country. they claim to have shown long lasting effects from this malnutrition passed from mother to female child through generations.

Some could argue that overeating and the practice of it by a parent could be nurturing a child into the same behavior and then resulting in their own medical, health, emotional problems.

I think the overeating example has relevance also because of the fat tax and junk food taxes many are mumbling about...one of the main reasons cited is that people feel obese people who willing over eat and disregard their health effect our health as a nation and the health of our medical system.

If this was already mentioned/covered I apologize and please just ignore me

I read some of it...but it is 15 pages long...am sorry I just do not have that kind of time.
My points are not to do solely with health...isn't smoking being banned because of health reasons tho?

My point is that there are not laws against pregnant mothers drinking, using drugs or even smoking as far as I am aware. There is also no laws that make you eat and nourish your body appropriately when pregnant and there are no laws that ban unacceptable behaviors like overeating (yet) even tho. it is an unhealthy enviroment for a child , it taxes our health system and hinders our population as a whole.

People do heaps of things to others that can have negative effects to each others health and I think as far as smoking laws go I am not understanding why we feel such a need to protect those who could just as easily walk away. Yet as in my examples....unborn children and young children dependent on their parents do not even have that option and we feel no need to lend our protection there.

Alcolhol intake IS controllable. There are retards out there that
go over the limit and get drunk. If they decide to drive at that
point, they are breaking the law. So, you see, there is already
a law in place to protect the public!


Obesity is a self-inflicted problem. If someone wants to eat too
much, become grossly overweight, develop illness, and die,
that is his/her choice! Why are you not understanding the difference???

By the way, if you are going to throw around statistics, have a source,
please.

How about this for an idea? Want to inhale it? Do so in a place where
the fumes will not attack others!! Want to be a smoker? Do it without
turning your neighbor into one as well!

Private businesses have a responsibility to provide a safe, healthy
environment for EVERYONE who may want to visit their establishments.

I agree with you about my aunt and uncle. He made the choice to
smoke, and she made the choice to be around it. I was merely trying
to point out the fact that second-hand smoke IS a danger,
therefore should be dealt with as such.

I do not enjoy arguing in circles. It is redundant and ridiculous.
Please add something new to your next post........... and it
wouldn't hurt if it actually had some real pertinence to what
we are talking about...

So heres the logic. We know that intoxicated individuals cause drunk driving accidents, and we know that the product that they consumed is alcohol. We know that driving while intoxicated is illegal, so we pass laws to eliminate it. The laws fail to work and 17,144 people died from intoxicated drivers that consumed alcohol and broke the law. Most victims of intoxicated drivers had no warning that an intoxicated driver was in the area. So don't ban alcohol.

We know that smoking produces second hand smoke. We know that to come into contact with second hand smoke, one must make a choice to come into contact with it. We think that the effects of second hand smoke may cause premature deaths. And we know that there is warning that this is present when we encounter it. Therefor, it should be banned.

That is, after all, your logic.......

So something that, by exercising your free will, and walking away from it, thus taking all risk involved away, should be banned, yet something who's victims have no warning that it's "second hand" risk is present, should not be banned.

Strange logic indeed.....






It is as self inflicted as consuming second hand smoke is. Why do you not understand the difference. Putting a fork in your mouth is only somewhat less difficult then turning away from a bar that allows smoking. It's called the "right to self determination" the one right the Founding Fathers fought extremely hard to protect!!!!



I have quoted the EPA, the American Cancer Society and Obesity.com. Are you implying that they are "pawns of Big Tobacco"?



How about this for an idea. Invest the Capital, the time and the work to open a business, then YOU decide how it should be run?" These are, after all, private, not public facilities. Oh, another Idea, exercise your "right to self determination" and walk away from any facility that you feel uncomfortable in being in. Why do people like you want the Government to make even the simplist decisions for you?




Private businesses may run their businesses the way they feel fit as long as they obey the existing laws. And you show your lack of understanding of business (I am a licenced Commercial Real Estate Broker that runs several retail and mixed use facilities. So I know a bit about this).

I love how you inserted "EVERYONE who may want to visit........" naive at best. First, not EVERYONE can visit EVERY business. There are limits. Underage individuals may not "visit" many businesses. Second, the business can, and does exclude anyone that they DO NOT want in their businesses for ANY reason they choose. Lastly, it is the consumer, NOT the businessman that chooses which businesses they visit. ANOTHER prime example of "the right to SELF DETERMINATION"



The legal precedent for violating the 14th Amendment by ordinance is clear, and this does NOT COME CLOSE to meeting the court mandated standards.

The evidence would show that in 1988 their "may have been" 53,000 ETS related deaths. Since then there has been an 800% increase in "smoke free" buildings. In 2003 there "may be" 53,000 deaths related to ETS.

53,000 minus 53,000 equals 0

If the statistics used by the CDC, the EPA and the American Cancer Society are true, and that 53,000 died in 1988 and every year since, then these deaths CANNOT be from ETS.

If the numbers fail to fall, then the statistical data must be false! That is how statistics work (on the other hand perhaps it wasn't ETS killing all these folks after all, maybe it was Gremlins. After all, the evidence shows that something must be killing 53,000, and we HAVE eliminated ETS from the possible culprits, haven't we!"



Then quit doing it! I have asked you several times to stop this, and answer questions!



YOU'RE TELLING ME?



The above quote is the best example I have ever seen of that old saying "Pot calling kettle black"

PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED



You already knew that, didn't you.

Red,

Here is my logic:

We put a ban on smoking in the common areas of outdoor
malls, the patio areas of restaurants, as well as some other privately
owned businesses whose majority of customers are non-smokers.

Those establishments who cater more to smokers will
not have the ban imposed on them. They would be
bars, bowling alleys, casinos, mental hospitals, AA meetings,
and Gentlemen's Clubs.

This would be a good compromise. It would make us non-smokers breath
a fresh sigh of relief.

And the good ole smokers of the world could light up with an ounce of
satisfaction as well.

I could actually agree on this.......I Think

Nice that you two can compromise and come to an agreement on which property owners can be denied their right to utilize their property. Since the subject of the debate is the constitutionality of smoking bans, how is it that banning smoking in restaurants is constitutional, but banning them in bars is not?

As well to add to Hugo's comments right now for most places that don't allow smoking in their establishment the outside is the only refuge for smokers to go so now your saying smokers cant smoke outside of a restaurant or in outside malls where is it going to end maybe I dont give my business to the list that you feel it would be okay to smoke at Doomed_planet. Yes I smoke and have gone into areas where smoking was not allowed like in the non-smoking section and in fact I dont get smoke coming over to me. In fact most restaurants that have a smoking section do have exhaust fans that take the smoke away before it can go over to the non-smoking section at least where I live. So maybe push to have the restaurant put in a better exhaust fan where you go. Yes I said where you go because it is the right of the consumer to go into an establishment to over their business just like it is your right not to. PERIOD

As well I don't always smoke around non-smokers especially children I will not smoke cause their lungs are still developing and they dont have the rights to decide to be around or not to be around smokers. As well as when I am around someone that I am with that does not smoke I become a non-smoker for that period of time out of respect. As long as the government allows smoking to be legal you cant have it both ways and say you can only go here and here to smoke. If you want to get rid of smoking have the government make it illegal hell I actually would except that cause I hate the habit and have tried to quit but right now to many things in life are stopping me from cause it reliefs the stresses I am having at this time. And that is my right cause right now it is legal.

Hugo:

This will probably not please anyone, but I can agree with you, and Planet and still be Constitutionally sound (hows that admin......whew).

The Courts have ruled that it is not a violation of the 14th Amendment for municipalities to "ban" things if there is sufficient evidence to support that the "public health and safety" is being harmed. This is why you can't smoke a doobie in public.

I think that Doomed, and my compromise might actually be Constitutionally sound if applied as follows:

Any Bar or Restaurant that serves alcohol would still be open to smoking. This makes some sense since Children are either prohibited from them, or play a fairly small role in their customer base. Children, after all are subject to their parents "force" so lack the pure right of "self determination" that the Adult has. I know this is subject to much debate. But the logic seems sound.

Bars however, where alcohol is the main source of revenue, would stay completely exempt from such a ban, as it is difficult, if not impossible to say that ETS would be the most dangerous product served. I suppose that same claim can be made for restaurants that serve alcohol, as any parent that would bring a child into one, is also bringing them into the presence of "demon alcohol".

Restaurants that do not serve alcohol could be included in a ban, since their COULD be the argument that the "childs" rights to "self determination" are, not clear.

This should open up a "whole new can of worms". I have a strange feeling that the sharks are circling.....................

Red you and I were sort of saying the samething, but one of the problems with the bars is some places have also banned smoking in bars as well.

It is absolutely stupid to support a ban on a place like a bar, that is why I can't support, and I am working against the local ban. They JUST GO TO FAR!. I have asked this before. What wacko game up with the idea that BARS are supposed to be a healthy place anyway? Yes, lets make them more confortable, so more drunk drivers will hit the streets........

Look, I am tired of the smoker being treated like a killer. Most of all the bad rap smokers get is because people who are NOT elite, want to feel like "the elite". If they can make a class that they can look down on, they will.

Todays, group-de-jour is the smoker.

The right to self determination seems to have been forgotten, that is what the ENTIRE constitution was forged on, as far as I am concerned.

If this is constitutionally sound, we must be reading different constitutions.

After reading the amendment several more times, I don't see any way a judge could rule that smoking bans are permissible under the 14th amendment.

Here's what the 14th says:

1. States can't make laws that take away a citizen's right to life, liberty, or property without taking them to court, and they have to treat everyone the same.

2. Representative totals should be determined using a mathematical formula.

3. Nobody elected can support a rebellion against the government.

4. The public debt is the public debt, whether you like it or not.

5. Congress can make more laws to enforce this law.

Here's the actual text: link

I don't see how one can determine that a smoking ban is constitutional based on that. The only semi-related paragraph is the first, and it doesn't even mention smoking.

It does mention property though. Where have I read that before...?

Oh yeah! The fifth amendment:



So, the framers knew that we had property rights. Those who passed the 14th knew we had property rights. But the courts don't seem to have the same read as the folks who wrote the law.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't commercial establishments of all sort pay property taxes? OK. So we're clear on that. One must own property to pay property taxes, and anything on which property taxes are paid can be considered property.

Now, if we are to believe we have the right to liberty, would that right not start on our own property? I am at liberty to smoke in my home (for now) because it is my property. Business owners are at liberty to smoke and allow patrons to smoke in their establishments because it is their property. These go hand in hand.

But wait, there's more...!

Any proposals that certain businesses would be exempt from anti-smoking legislation would be in direct violation of the 14th amendment. Property owners are all to be afforded equal protection under the law. Therefore laws outlawing smoking in certain places while maintaining legality in others is in direct contrast of the 14th-- equal protection and all...

So where does this constitutionality come in? It sure seems like any ban on smoking in a private establishment (aka property) would actually be contrary to the 14th amendment, and also contrary to the 5th amendment, and, therefore, contrary to the good ol' constitution.

Mike

Mike:

All good points. I would agree with most, maybe all, I havn't had enough time to think it all through though.

I don't however think you can make such blanket statements to justify that the Constitution, and it's provisions applies in just one direction. It sometimes conflicts itself.

The one thing is for sure. The writers intended that each individual have the "right of self determination" or, to the greatest extent possible, allow each citizen the right to determine their own path.

This however seems impossible when dealing with Children. They have limited oportunity to create their own path, and require a bit of additional protection. That is why I COULD make the claim that the health of the child May indeed superceed the rights of the Property owner. I am, as of this posting, unclear that the evidence is, even in this, compelling enough to allow for this. The Courts have been clear as to the evidence required, and it appears that it remains woefully short of the intent of the courts.

I remain however, open minded. I again point out that I affiliate with NO party because they seem to be "mutually exclusive" in their thought process, which is something I struggle not to do.

Great post Mike.

Keep em coming, and show me where I am in error.

Besides your proposal seeming highly questionable under the 14th Amendment (as Mike has pointed out), I want to know when it became the responsibility of individual property owners to protect other people's children. The property owner of a bar isn't imposing his or her environment on children anymore than the property owner of a restaurant. While the child may be subject to the will of their parents, it is not the responsibility of the property owner as to whether or not a parent is willing to put their children at any risk.

Whether a facility serves alcohol or not, or allows minors as well as adults, I don't see how the mere choice of entering onto another person's property somehow restricts or prohibits the rights of the property owner.

It is not only the property owner that has rights. That’s why I said peviously that sometimes Constitutional rights conflict.

By way of example. You might invite me into your home. The house is yours, and the invitee DOES give up some rights by entering your home. One of those rights that he does not give up is the right to leave. If the owner of the home expresses his right to his property, by locking the invitee in a closet, then the 14th amendment does not protect the owner.

All property owners face restrictions. I can not, due to zoning laws, operate a auto dealership on my property, and it does not violate the 14th amendment, at least that is what the court ruling have been.

A child is always afforded a “premium” amount of protection, as are the mentally challenged, the infirmed, etc. I am not exactly sure what the law is, or where it came from, but it appears that the courts treat those, who’s “right to self determination” are the least enforceable, with the greatest possible protection of those rights. It often times takes superiority over others. Right or wrong, this appears to be the case.

You said:



I suppose the case is made that this occurs when you, the property owner, allows them on your property. You do have the right to exclude them. Property rights work both ways. Don’t allow them on the property, exclude the liability, allow them on your property, assume the liability.

Don’t get me wrong, I am against these bans based on the courts decisions and the qualifications that are within the courts decisions, yet I always try to, at least figure out the oppositions mindset.

I treat these things like a chess game. When you understand the opponents strategy, you can see what’s coming and make the needed adjustments.

I look forward to your response.

I don't know if this has been addressed yet because this is a HUGE topic that I have yet to read all of yet, but there is ONE example that I can think of that might need a little explaining from you members who are more attuned to the constitution:

1) Assuming that secondhand smoke IS harmful to people who inhale it

The govornment DOES dictate that 1) Driving legal, 2) A car is your possession, and 3) that drinking is legal

but that if you combine the three, that it is an ILLEGAL action because it endangers other drivers.

now, with replacing the driver with smoker, car with buisness, house, etc. and drinking with smoking (of course) doesn't that bring it out of the unconstitutional aspect a bit?

I don't believe it is unconstitutional. Just as it's illegal to murder/injure someone with a gun, it should be illegal to murder/injure someone with tobacco smoke.

So then the batter that is hit in the head by a 100 mph fast ball was murdered?

The Constitution insures that people MAY take risks. Sorry, if the batter was FORCED into the batters box, you may have a Constitutional justified argument, yet, we all know the batter volunteers to be in this position, just as anyone who chooses to be in the position to inhale second hand smoke volunteers to be there.

Murderers don't give anyone the choice, free of undue duress.

I would disagree with that statement. That might be true if a voluntary smoking ban were imposed. If there was the option to smoke at a bar down the street and your bar was voluntarily banning smoking, then yes there is a chance you might lose some business.

If the ban was unilaterally imposed then a negligble amount of business would be lost. Would smokers decide as a whole to simply not go to bars, night clubs and coffee houses? No, they wouldn't. They would go just like the rest of us and when their addiction took hold they would step outside and have a smoke.

As a resident of California I have witnessed proof that is how it works, and let me tell you being able to walk into a bar and not come out smelling like smoke is the greatest thing.

Yet this does not relate to the Constitutionality of smoking bans. The question is whether or not our Government should allow property rights, guarenteed under the Constitution, to be shredded for this.



The Constitution makes no reference to revenue. It is simply who controls rights, the business owner, or the government. The Constitution is pretty clear on this.




And your "addiction" to alcohol, sugars and other unhealthy "addictives" may be satisfied in the climate contralled interior............ OK?



With or without these bans, guess what, YOU STILL COULD!. That is the beauty of the Cosnstitution, NO ONE COULD FORCE YOU IN A SMOKEY BAR IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!.



I Will refute that claim. The betterment of society isn't just about choice. Our Society, within the United States, is governed by a Document called the Constitution. The Constitution grants that "choice" to the property owner NOT the GOVERNMENT. You may say that these bans Increase choice, and maybe that is true, BUT LIMITS THE CHOICE TO THE INDIVIDUALS THAT THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS THEM TO. THE PROPERTY OWNER

but the car owner in my post above is the "property owner"

still so confused

He is driving on public roads. If he is drunk and cruising around in his driveway he cannot be ticketed for a DWI.

Hehe... er....

thanks for the clairification

now that that's outta the way

DIE, SMOKING BANS!!!!!