Seeing as this is Constitutional Debate, I was wondering:

Can anyone point out any section of the Constitution that protects non-smokers from smoke?

It seems everyone here has these great arguments as to why smoke is bad, but I am yet to see one that addresses the fact that we all have a choice in which establishments we support.

We choose where we work. We choose where we eat. We choose whether or not we subject ourselves to smoke.

Mike

Why should people be incovenienced by smokers, if they want to eat somewhere, why should they forced not to because of smokers. Smoke makes the eating experience at restaraunts terrible, plus they cause cancer, why should the majority of the people be subjected to unhealthy thnigs such as smoke.

CP

The original question was asking if smoking bans should be addressed as a constitutional issue. The argument against smoking has been that it is not a constitutional issue rather than saying the constitution supports banning smoking. Health and comfort reasons are the reasons which suggest it is not a constitutional issue. The anti-ban argument has been that it is a constitutional issue as it is involving smoker's rights and no one else's rights are involved in this smoking issue.

Conservpat- how is it that you can quote Mike and then mention nothing about the Constitution?

Point of information: Apart from a personal dislike of the smell, no one here has a "great argument as to why smoke is bad" in the least - they just have received anti-smoking propaganda. Not a single poster has supported their "health-risk" argument with - well, anything.

Otherwise, I agree whole-heartedly with your Constitutional argument. I just looked through it again and the closest thing I could find was something about the enumeration of certain rights not being construed to deny or disparage other rights. Hmmn... Of course, the whole anti-smoking campaign sounds an awful lot like Amendment XVIII - the only one to be repealed, presumably because it was just stupid.

I was kinda sitting on the fence on this issue, I think you guys conviced me. The ban is technically unconstitutional.

CP

I think a solution is inherent in the sort of place cyan mentioned. I have no problem with smoking sections being partitioned or enclosed, with exhaust systems installed - nor do I imagine any smoker would (we tend to be rather more courteous as a class than non-smokers ). This could be done relatively cheaply by any business which formerly had both smoking and non-smoking sections. Granted, it would mean some additional cost, but if it were part of the health code (despite the lack of evidence that it is a health issue), it would be little different from, say, making sure two closed doors separate your kitchen from your restrooms. Businesses which wish to allow both smoking and non-smoking could shoulder the expense or opt for one or the other (because I definitely feel that, if there are legally sanctioned non-smoking establishments, there should, by all rights, be legal smoking only establishments). Then - hey, presto! - choice is restored to the American people and the Constitution becomes a meaningful document again.

Try checking out the homepage for the National Cancer Society who have stated there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that second hand smoke has any negative effects on non smokers.



Bravo, well said.



Why should smokers be incovenienced by non-smokers, if they want to eat somewhere, why should they forced not to because of non-smokers.



There isn't one



YEAH!!!

I think at first I was looking at the issue narrowly. First of all to discriminate against any group of people is wrong, why can't you just make a smoking and non-smoking section [wouldn't that be better for business anyway] second, if nonsmokers don't like it, don't go to that restaraunt, it's that simple.

CP

The fact is the business is the property of the business owner, he is the one who should decide rather to ban smoking or not.

But what right does he have to deny a group of people from his bar for no good reason?

CP

I don't sympathize with smokers, because they smoke constantly in places regardless of how ventilated the areas are. This is blatantly disrespectful to the health of every non smoker, and it doesn't matter that smokers have the legal right to give other people cancer. It is still wrong and immoral on their part.

More people will benefit from a smoking ban, including the smokers. Being in favour of a smoking ban is maximizing everyone's rights and choices whether you want to accept it or not. Plus, smokers can still smoke outside. Unfortunately, I can't take a meal at a restaurant outside or bump and grind to bar music outside without looking like a tool (or just very drunk). It is a helluva lot more practical for the smoker to make these small sacrifices. Why is it fair that the non smoker has to be the one to make the 'choice' of going elsewhere?

And private property is not an argument here. In the same way your fist flying in the air stops at my face, a person's right to smoke stops at my lungs.

I equate blowing smoke in someone's face to physical assault. Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than you think. In fact, second-hand smoke kills more children than falls down the stairs or drownings in the pool.

I agree with giving businesses the right to decide what goes on in the establishment. However, by the logic presented here, since second-hand smoke, which is harmful, should be OK in public places, then swinging fists wildly, which is harmful, should also be OK.

Obviously not. One's right to swing your fist stops at my face (even in private property), just like one's right to smoke should stop there, too.

Welcome to the site, Matt.

Interesting connection, equating a non-smoker's decision to patronize a smoker-friendly establishment as a smoker committing assault.

Let me just point out one thing: If you knowingly walk into my fist, it is not assault. Non-smokers have choices.

Matt, I think that your vehicle's exhaust is damaging to me. There's plenty of evidence to support my argument. Now, if you drive down my street, I consider it to be assault. I have no choice but to breath the exhaust from your vehicle.

In your smoking-assault scenario, however, you chose to visit a smoking establishment.

I could also take contention with your statement that everyone would benefit from the prohibition of smoking in public (private) places. Forcing smokers, those who have a medically recognized illness, to stand outside in extreme weather conditions just so they can satisfy their medical condition will certainly increase the chance that those smokers will get ill. This form of discrimination will clearly hurt someone.

Mike

Sure, we non smokers have a 'choice' to stay out of smoky restaurants, if you consider that choice to be either get cancer or not go out. Some choice.

You are failing to take into consideration the how things pan out in the real world. To start - think of the workers. Many workers have little to no choice but to get a job at a workplace which has a smoky atmosphere. They may not be able to get another job, or are in school struggling with student debt and have no car to drive the distance to another job. They have no choice but to work a job close by for practical reasons and that place may very well be smoky. Or they could be a low to no skilled worker struggling to raise a family and really don't have much alternative than a job which is performed in a very smoky workplace. 'Finding another job' is not convenient or easy. It really isn't a 'choice' at all! Since we live in the real world, I think we should debate this in real world terms and offer these workers some consideration.

And what about the children? What about parents bringing their children into restaurants which are smoky? Your argument holds some water in establishments like pubs or dance clubs where all patrons are of the age of majority, but what about places where parents bring their child, which are polluted with smoke? Does this child really have a choice in the matter? Is this child really going to stand up for anything? No, of course not, and the government should look at that as no less than outright child abuse and intervene. I know this ties in with arguments involving parental responsibility, but as we all know, not all parents are responsible and there are laws in existence to make up for that (thankfully).

As well, look at this from a psychological viewpoint: The smokers reward for smoking comes instantaneously, while the non smokers cancer comes years down the road. If people were any smarter, they would look at the risks, realize how bad they are, and STOP going to bars and places that were too smoky. But people don't realize this, and therefore the marketplace can't handle the problem because it is literally impossible for enough people to realistically analyze the risks.

Private property is subject to reasonable government regulations. Although there is obvious difference between a health regulation and smoking regulation and customers are aware of the risk up front, and can avoid the risk by leaving, this just doesn't work in real life! In my city, an 82% majority voted in favour of this smoking ban. Clearly this is what the people really want! If everyone who didn't like smoke truly followed what they felt like, free of peer pressure or other factors, businesses would already be operating under a smoke-free alternative. Non smokers are merely more tolerable of the smoke than vice versa, observe:

One day six people I know went to a restaurant for supper. 5 non smokers, and 1 smoker. They were sitting in the smoking section. Let's do the Math:

1 smoker is not willing to tolerate 5 non smokers.

5 non smokers are willing to tolerate 1 smoker.

Each non smoker is tolerating the choice of only 1/5 of a person while one smoker is not tolerating the choice of 5 people. That means that mathematically, there is 25 times the number of people being tolerated by every non smoker than the number of people being not being tolerated by the smokers. But we do tolerate it, and that's the problem! Something on such a micro level as a municipal vote is the perfect tool to determine what the people (and therefore, market force) really wants. I know you can agree with the concept of a market force, and I'm sure you agree that in this particular case, it's not working! If people were getting hit over the head with a 2X4 on the dance floor would people still consent to go to the bar? Of course not! And the effects of smoking are far worse, but the damage can't be accurately gauged by people well enough to apply any pressure to business owners. That is why the will of the people, acted out thanks to the government is neccesary in this case. Simply because people aren't rational enough to make these types of decisions on their own.

Another point - What are you fighting for here? Your right to smoke? The only valid argument is that we are all fighting for business owner's property rights - Think about that for a second - You are all fighting for a business owner to keep the right to allow his patrons to blow carcinogens into the air. Something which benefits no one. What an arbitrary and ridiculous thing to fight for especially when far more people, non smokers and smokers included will benefit without this 'right'.

As was said, just because something is legal doesn't mean we should have the 'right' to perform this legal activity everywhere. In the same way municipal zoning laws exist to keep chemical factories away from residential areas, municipal bylaws are voted on and passed. It is on a micro level and cannot be classed in the same cateogory as government intervention as it is traditionally understood.

I haven't participated in this thread, but the message I got from the opening post wasn't whether smokers or non-smokers had more rights in public but whether or not government bodies had the authority to enforce smoking regulations on private establishments.
Emphasis added

It seems to me as though the debate might be escaping from this and degenerating into a simple smokers vs. non-smokers argument. While I'm not a smoker and don't particularly care for smoky environments, I don't think government bodies have the authority (Constitutionally or otherwise) to forcefully ban smoking in private establishments. The decision to be smoke free in and on private property should be the decision of the property owner.

In the real world, the non smoking section doesn't necessarily allow us non-smokers to escape the smokers.

As a non smoker, I was waiting for my order at McDonalds, which does not tolerate smoking in their restaurants and has not for several years. Recently a woman walked in smoking a cigarette, walked up to the counter and placed her order. A manager finally tried to tell her that she was not allowed to smoke in the restaurant. That was soon followed by, "You're not allowed to use that type of language in here either." She agreed to take her order for take out, but never put out her cigarette.

I know of restaurants that I do not frequent because the amount of smoke in the non smoking area is intolerable, or because I have to walk through the smoking area to be seated in the non smoking area.

I must admit though, that I am so accustomed to walking in and requesting non smoking seating, that I just assumed it was a national standard. We were traveling through an area where tobacco is a significant commercial crop, a few years back. We stopped at a restaurant and asked to be seated in the non smoking section. "We don't discriminate," the waitress told us, "you can sit anywhere you please and we won't make you smoke."

Why is it *always* the right of the smoker and *never* the right of the non-smoker? As someone has pointed out, and Ive witnessed a few times, when there is ONE smoker in the group, the entire group sits in the smoking section.

So the non-smoker has the choice of not frequenting establishments that are too smoky? Well, the smoker has the choice not to smoke. Its really that easy. Why is it OK for society to cater to the habits of an addict, but not those who arent addicted? In any other form, addiction is bad, we dont hire alcoholics, or pot heads, or heroin addicts, but its acceptable is addict uses nicotine.

As for the "its wrong to discriminate against a minority" argument, when it comes to race or gender, we have NO choice in the matter. And you dont hurt people by being black or a girl. Smokers have a choice, and they willingly put themselves in the minority, and I dont even think they are being discriminated against, as they still have a good majority of places to smoke that I have to put up with (in Denver, I dont think theres anything at all like a smoke free bar, or a bar with a nonsmoking area).

I do not see the problem with a serious segregation in a club, bar, restaurant etc. of smoking and non-smoking. I do feel that smokers have the right to be able to smoke in private establishments, just like I have the right not to be subjected to it. And while Ive met a few people that agree with that scenario, Ive seen far more opposition to it, and Im not really sure why.

If the government is banning smoking for health and safety reasons would this be unconstitutional? Would all healthy and a safety regulations be equally unconstitutional? If not, what is the difference?

My thoughts exactly, Gray.

Everyone is great at demonizing smokers, but nobody is using the constitution to validate their argument.

Seems kind of odd, being in Constitutional Debate and all.

I didn't read in the constitution that we all have the right to have the government protect us from cigarette smoke. Could someone please point that out to me? (and no, the 'general welfare' clause doesn't apply without a very loose read of the constitution)

Mike

I thought of you, Mike, as well as Abs, when I wrote this question:I am not sure how either of you would answer this question and it does seem to be the crux of the constitutional question to me. I know your stand on smoking but do you see all health and safety regulation in a similar light?

So, in regards to your question, Gray Seal:

I would not say all health and safety regulations. I think the government, representative of the people, should still have the ability to write and enforce health and safety regulations for, say, the manufacture and use of certain products. I don't, however, feel they have the right to enforce health and safety regulations banning legal substances in private establishments.

I don't feel there is anything in the Constitution which should allow the government, on any level, from forbidding an independent business from serving alcohol or tobacco within their establishment. That choice, I believe, resides only with the property owner and after that point it is up to the patrons to decide whether they will give said establishments their business.

Witness one human being's mind being split into rational and emotional halves:

Rational: I see no reason why the government should have authority over this issue. I greatly welcome the trend for private establishments to voluntarily ban all smoking.

Emotional: I have had many pleasant experiences ruined by smokers. I have had many people leave cigarette butts on my property which I have to clean up, despite the fact that I have gone to the trouble to post a "No Smoking" sign on my house. I have seen, many times, people disregard "No Smoking" signs in restaurants and other places and blatantly smoke. I have to drive, almost every day, behind people flicking cigarette ashes out of their car windows. I have to pick up garbage on my property's 40 acres of woods, the vast majority of which is beer cans and cigarette butts. Will you blame me if I contest the assertion that smokers tend to be more courteous than non-smokers? Frankly, I think the physical addiction of smoking is so strong that it causes otherwise kind and considerate people to behave in deplorable ways. How many people are careful enough to never throw their cigarette butts on the ground? These are the same people, sadly, who would otherwise never consider littering. (These remarks do not apply to any of you smokers who are genuinely considerate of others. To be blunt, I think you are in a very small minority.)

I would like to point out to all of you NOT in favour of a smoking ban, that this is your only reasonable argument:

A smoking ban infringes on private property rights.

Do you honestly think businesses would be, on the whole, less happy with a smoking ban? The only reason most businesses allow smoking is because they NEED to in order to stay in business competitively. Let's look at this realistically:


(1) The majority of people don't want to go into smoky environments, but since demand for the sum of businesses which allow smoking is INELASTIC have NO CHOICE but to do so. If any of you honestly believe we non smokers have a 'choice' which is to either inhale smoke or stay at home, you are kidding yourselves. The aggregate of demand (ie, bars, restaurants, smoke filled places) is inelastic. The same way the government needs to intervene to keep the prices of gasoline reasonable, the government needs to intervene with smoking bans, too.

(2) As a result of allowing smoking, smoke causes damage to equipment which in turn costs thousands and thousands of dollars for many businesses to repair (ie, replacing TVs and electronics equipment far more often, more vaccuming and cleaning, repainting, etc, etc). Bars and Bingo palaces are great examples of this.

(3) A smoking ban puts NO business at a COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE, and it has been proven empirically that smoking bans DO NOT result in a drop in sales or overall profits.


So, let's think about this - ZERO competitive disadvantage and thousands of dollars saved on repairs to damage caused by cigarette smoke. Maybe it's just me, but all facts considered, I have a feeling that the majority of business owners would agree a smoking ban is in their best interest.

If there existed a bar where you enter with the knowledge you are going to get punched in the face by a bouncer before you leave, this type of bar should be allowed. After all, it IS consentual, if you know you are going to be punched and choose to walk in anyway. Likewise, a person entering a smoky bar is doing so under their own free will.

But would anybody go to a bar where they are promised a punch in the face?? Of course not! But people can't gauge a day of breathing in smoke the same way they can a broken nose, so people make the mistake of tolerating smoke, even though the costs of second hand smoke are far worse than a broken nose. The truth is, no one wants it...The people don't want it, and therefore, neither does the market force.

I also know none of you are really arguing for business owners rights to allow patrons to breath cancer. The majority of you are smokers who don't want to inconvenience yourself with having to go outside to smoke. Simple as that - CONVENIENCE - or lack thereof.

Welcome to the world of the non smoker. The only difference being that the cost of our convenience does not hurt others.

Interesting point. Alcohol sales in this state require that you have a license, insurance, follow certain rules, etc. I'm not allowed to bring my own beverage into any type of restaurant or bar.

It might follow perhaps, that cigarette smoking should only be allowed if you purchase your cigarette from the establishment, one at a time from the menu; at a price that reflected the cost to the establishment of checking your ID, increased fire insurance, the increased cost of ventilation, meeting EPA requirements for the discharges to the atmosphere, etc.

If it is a need for Nicotine, there are nicotine patches, and Nicotrol gum that can provide the nicotine.

To my mind though, the forum for a Constitutional argument on a smoking ban would seem to be in the courts. There have been enough smoking bans implemented without challenge of any sort, that I have to suspect the tobacco industry lawyers either believe they are constitutional; or they fear that losing such a challenge would lead to a national smoking ban in public buildings, parks, streets, meeting places, and places of employment.

If they'd prefer people not smoke in their establishment, let them make that decision for their property themselves. It is their choice whether or not they are willing to allow smoking in a bid to stay competitive. Both smokers and non-smokers have the right to choose where they go, and if they don't like the smoking regulations of a particular destination they may go elsewhere.


If "the majority of people" don't want smokey environments, it seems businesses would not put themselves at any disadvantage banning all smoking themselves. If they are responding to the wish of the majority it seems they should have a decided edge over their competitors who continue to allow smoking, offering "the majority" what they might consider a hostile environment. Since when are businesses that allow smoking "INELASTIC" with no choice in how their business is run?


Sounds to me like another reason for businesses to make the switch themselves. Even if eliminating the option to smoke were to harm the sales of a particular business (contradicting what you seem to say in #1), it would appear they have a good chance to break even by eliminating the costs that stem from the smoking to begin with.

The rationalization is there for businesses to prohibit smoking of their own will without government intervention. While I see reasons presented for establishments to accept a no-smoking policy, I see absolutely no reason presented here for the government to step in and ban smoking in private establishments.
size=1(And I'm a non-smoker)


This seems a stretch to me, but perhaps. Either way, though, it appears that such a decision should belong to the owner of the establishment rather than have the government tell them what they can or can't do.

I happen to know the owner of the local Bingo Palace and he says he would ban smoking in a heartbeat if it would not result in him losing business. The ONLY reason why he would lose any business is because his smoking patrons would go to a business that allows smoking and bring with them all their non smoking friends. He told me he pays thousands of extra dollars a year due to smoke causing damage to equipment, repainting and so on, and would love to ban smoking if it did not put him at a competitive disadvantage. He said a mandatory smoke ban would be great because it would save him the money on repairs and keep his profit at the same rate. Trust me, more business owners than you think want to ban smoking, but they just can't unless they are forced to, because if they do it alone, they WILL lose money. When done as a group, THEY SAVE MONEY. Business owners make their business smoke friendly for the same reason I, as a non smoker, enter that business...I have little choice in the matter!

I explained this from a psychological perspective.

Non smokers will tolerate smoke more than the other way around. Mainly because cigarettes are addictive. When a business is smoke friendly, non smokers will tolerate it. When a business is smoke free, non smokers will continue to go there, but smokers will not. For example, if a bar was smoke free, no smoker would go, and they would take with them there non smoker friends to another bar. ok...So this comes down to smokers seemingly not caring much.

When put like that, the fact that non smokers don't care very much only hurts my case, making the benefits of intervention seem less justified. The point here is that the market will provide non-smoking facilities precisely to the degree that non smokers care...But if people knew that they could be dead from a second hand smoke related illness 25 years before their life expectancy, people WOULD care. A concept like tobacco slowly poisoning us all is very difficult for any of us to comprehend, because the process is so long and drawn out. It is just an example of how people make irrational decisions that they really don't want to make, and as I said, the marketplace just can't take care of something like this on it's own. That's why something like a municipal bylaw (put in place through a vote from the citizens) is the perfect choice. It would reflect what most people really want. In fact, if all the business owners in a city were to be told that if they banned smoking, not only would it have a nil effect on profit margins, but even save them money on smoke related damages, I'm certain that they would agree amongst themselves to keep smoke out of their business. Like the non smoker, business owners are at the whim of smokers because with their addiction, they will not tolerate smoke free atmospheres, and pressure their friends to go along with that. The same way five non smokers accompany one smoker at dinner sitting at the smoking section. However, a meeting of business owners is not practical to solve the problem. A municipal vote is.

The reason why I say demand is inelastic is because non smokers really don't have a choice to just 'go somewhere else'. That's like saying I have a choice to not put gasoline in my car...If your alternative is that I walk, that statement holds some water, but gasoline is considered inelastic because generally people do need cars. Not to breath or to stay alive, but it just would not be practical to do without. Demand may not be as inelastic as food or water, but it still qualifies. When the price of gasoline goes up to $1.00 a litre, people will still buy it, and if businesses became smoke free, smokers would still go, just the same way non smokers still go despite the smoke. Demand such as that is inelastic, so why not make the choice that benefits more people? If a choice for myself (as a non smoker) is to stay home or go to less than half as many restaurants as I had a chance to before, than this really isn't a choice at all.

PROS

- Smokers could still smoke in their own homes, outside, or in private clubs.
- No business would lose any profit.
- Businesses would not have to replace smoke damaged equipment, etc.
- Non smokers or people with smoke allergies would not get ill due to somebody else's cigarette.

CONS

- All businesses would be denied their 'right' to allow smoking patrons to blow carcinogens into the air and faces of non smokers.
- Smokers would have to be inconvenienced to go outside in order to kill themselves.

Big deal! Self mutilation or suicide should be legal, I guess...Since it's your own choice, but is it really a cause worth fighting for?? Suicidal people, more often than not, are not in a rational state of mind when they decide to end their lives. Smokers, by the definition of an addiction, are also not acting as freely as possible when they smoke, and I am sure that even smokers as a whole, would rather not be doing it. Any law which acts as a deterrent to killing yourself (such as a smoking ban) is fine by me.

Matt Canning - your appeals to emotion are fantastic, but you fail to address the actual topic - the Constitutionality of a smoking ban. How do ANY of your statements in this debate, thus far, tie into protections enumerated in the Constitution?

We are in the Constitutional Debate Forum and the original premise of this debate was that smoking bans are unconstitutional. Do you have any support for a contrary view?

Four - five decades ago, making ashtrays in school was mandatory because "everyone needs them." I made at least one each year at summer camp.

When non-smoking sections were first mandated in Michigan, I had an interesting experience. I stopped at a restaurant as I was driving across the state. I asked for a seat in the non-smoking section. The waitress said, "All of our customers who smoke have decided on an act of civil disobedience. They're all sitting in the non-smoking section and smoking today. If you like, I can seat you in the smoking section. No one is smoking there today."

Again, if smokers truly feel that bans on smoking are an unconstitutional violation of their rights; I would suggest that someone walk into a church or a grocery store, light up, and insist on being arrested. He or she would then have a right to demand a trial, appeal the decision, and fight their case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. That is the traditional route by which the constitutionality of a law is decided. My opinion as a lay person on whether such a law is constitutional or not would seem to be moot.

I watched just such a story unfold in Midland, Michigan, when the city passed an ordinance that required all public streets to have sidewalks on both sides of the street, paid for at the property owner's expense. The homeowners in a wealthy subdivision felt it was an infringement to allow pedestrians in their neighborhood, and fought the law, unsuccessfully, all the way to the Supreme Court.

Emphasis added

I didn't realize fellow non-smokers were that backwards. "The majority of people don't want to go into smokey environments," (Matt Canning, Jul 26) but yet they're going to follow their smoker friends into environments heavy with smoke when offered the chance of a smoke free environment in their usual Bingo Palace? If a non-smoker is that much of a tool perhaps they deserve whatever quality air they find themselves breathing.


How do you figure? When last I checked the number of businesses offering a non-smoking section or prohibiting smoking altogether were on the rise rather than the other way around. Non-smokers have more than viable alternatives and business owners have the personal power to offer those alternatives if they so wish.


Sound like generalizations to me. There are many non-smokers who will not tolerate a smoke filled environment and there are many smokers who can muster the strength to accept a smoke free environment for the duration of a dinner. If your statement were true then business would suffer enormously under a government forced smoking ban since, as you suggest, smokers will not tolerate a smoke free environment.


It is not simply smoking bans being discussed here. Private establishments have the same right to allow or ban smoking as patrons have to choose or refuse to provide them business. Smoking is not a crime. As long as it isn't the government has no right to prohibit private establishments from allowing smoking on their premises. Businesses have the same right to allow smoking as a smoker has to smoke in their own home.

As a non-smoker who absolutely DETESTS cigarette smoke and being around people who like to smoke in your face, I must say that I wouldn't mind a ban on smoking in public places.

However, I do think private establishments have every right to ban or not ban smoking as they see fit. As a non-smoker I can choose not to go into a place of business that caters to smokers.

I admit it's extremely annoying and bothersome as a dancer, to not be able to enjoy myself at dance clubs because everyone is smoking. But, I guess I can dance in the privacy of my own house (though that DOES limit dancing with others, I must say ). But if it bothers me that much (and it usually does) I just won't go.

I will say, though, that I do find it extremely rude when smokers blow smoke right in your face without warning and without respect to your feelings. And I think it is incredibly rude for ANYONE to smoke around children and babies. The instant someone lights up around my daughter (she's almost 2) I pick her up and walk away. Sorry, that really is rude and disrespectful. I don't care what the differing studies say on the danger (or not) of second-hand smoke, I'm not taking my chances with my children. My grandmother died of emphysema after smoking for 50+ years (when it was 'cool' to smoke and the dangers weren't advertised). My grandfather died 13 years before she did and the doctors said that the second hand smoke he'd endured over the years was a factor in his death.

Despite my personal disgust for smoking and people who show no respect for my wishes to breathe smoke-free air by blowing their nasty smoke in my face , I do understand that smokers have rights and establishments have the right to cater to smokers, especially when their business so heavily depends on smokers.

Where in the constitution does it say that private establishments do not have to uphold a federal law, were one in place? From what Ive read in the Constitution there is nothing about the way a private business should its business, good or bad (unless you want to count the part about taxes). Im really showing my ignorance on the this whole topic, but I was curious why this was in the Constitutional debate in the first place, since businesses and laws regarding business dont seem to be anywhere in the Constitution....Unless Im missing something.

So you believe there is constitution support for the enactment of healthy and safety laws in regards to manufacturing or using products but the constitution prohibits the enactment of laws in regards to healthy and safety in a workplace? What parts of the constitution are you using to support one but not the other?

I am presuming that the private establishments are hiring people. I am presuming the private establishments are inviting the public to enter their establishment. Are these the same presumptions you are using ?

As far as manufacturing or using products, do not people voluntarily choose to accept work or not? Is anyone forcing people to use dangerous products or use them in a dangerous way ? If freedom of choice is the basic argument you see in the constitution I can not see how it applies in one case and not the other.

How am I applying it in one case and not another? When I'm talking about regulations (what you asked about) I'm referring to things like age requirement for sales or printing warnings on the labels of cigarette packs and alcoholic beverages. I make a distinction between regulating a product and banning it.

Thank you kimpossible & Gray Seal for trying to keep this thread on topic. While it may seem unusual for some of you to debate public smoking bans as a Constitutional issue, that is what this is.

The debate isn't about whether you like it or not. There are a lot of things in this country some of us don't like but are constitutional (taxes, anyone?). SO - when debating this issue, keep that in mind. What is Constitutional about public smoking bans?

Thanks-

See, Gray, I don't see this as a health issue at all. I see it as a choice issue.

I'm not going to get into the shaky studies that establish the supposed danger of second hand smoke, but you should ponder why you have never seen or heard of a single person addicted to second hand smoke.

I just reread the constitution for probably the millionth time, and I still don't see where the government is allowed to dictate what private business owners do or don't do in their business.

As a matter of fact, the word "business" is only written once in the constitution, and company is not mentioned at all. Business is only mentioned in regards to the number of representatives required for a quorum.

Seeing as there were certainly businesses when the constitution was written, logic dictates that any intentions to separate the rights of businesses from the rights of individuals would have been reflected in the text.

However, it is not.

As a result of the constitution creating no separation between businesses and individuals, the decision as to allow smoking or not on an individual's property is up to that individual.

Mike

Couldnt it be also used that since it doesnt say one way or the other, that the government could dictate what a business does also? Since, there are restrictions on businesses that arent placed on individuals (or there are, the age limit on alcohol comes to mind, was that written into the appeal amendment that ONLY persons of the age 21 can purchase alcohol?) Where in the Constitution does it say that private businesses have the same rights as individuals (AND,although the court ruling proclaiming that Corporations have the same rights as individuals, a business is not always a corporation)? It doesnt say either way, so therefore, it could be interpreted either way you want it.

The being said, since the government is allowed to interfere with certain business practices, why couldnt they put a ban on smoking or add certain restrictions to places, such as well ventilated smoking areas?



Cant resist, while we've never heard of anyone being addicted to second hand smoke, trying to say that the danger is supposed is somewhat faulty. Is it *ever* healthy and safe to breathe in smoke and ash, burning tobacco or whatever? If so, why do firefighters have tons of equipment to make sure they arent breathing in the fumes from the fire?

Apparently, Kim, it is. According to a WHO study, environmental tobacco smoke can actually reduce the risk of smoking-related illnesses in children - presumably acting as some sort of vaccine. There's more on this in my contribution to the Second Hand Danger thread. As a constitutional issue, depriving innocent children of the efficacious benefits of second-hand smoke would clearly seem to contradict the "promotion of the general Welfare".

Very well put, Abs.

If this is found to be constitutionally valid, then what is going to stop the government from deciding next time, that driving cars (for instance) needs to be banned.

I can hear the argument for it now:
"After all, the carbon monoxide the average car produces in a ten minute drive, is greater than any 5 smokers having a cigarette. So, in the name of a healthy populace, and for 'the greater good', we are going to ban everyone from driving on Tuesdays and Thursdays. When they get used to that, we'll ban it altogether."

Oh, it'll still be legal to sell and own cars, but nobody will actually be able to use them, except maybe within the confines of their own garage, with the doors closed, of course. After all, they will only be able to poison themselves, then.

NiteGuy,

Cars are an excellent example of something legal which the government regulates! CAFE standards dictate mileage and pollutant levels for the average vehicle produced by a manufacturer. These standards were originally tight enough that VW quit making the Beetle, rather than trying to comply. Many states have ongoing inspections required for vehicles to make certain they are in operating order and not emitting too many pollutants. Diesel exhaust isn't the constant black and smelly gas that it was in the 50's.

Perhaps rather than banning smoking outright, we should simply require that the cigarette smoke has to be colorless, odorless, non-polluting,,,

So what? Pornography is legal too, but you can't run an adult book store across the street from an elementary school. There is a time and a place for everything and a city government has every right to determine what that time and place is. While they can't outright ban smoking within their borders, they can tell you where you can and can't smoke.

Heck, Disneyland instituted a limited smoking policy a while back and it's funny watching all these pasty-faced smokers huddled in tiny areas, segregated from the rest of us, sucking on their death sticks. Maybe if people are inconvenienced, they'll give up the disgusting addiction.

Until the government sponsors national healthcare reform, I think smoking should be banned in all public places.

The right of an individual to go out into social situations, whether it be to a club, restaurant, bus stop, beach, etc, and be free, or be subject to second hand smoke is a choice I make every time I go out.

When someone smokes, and exhales, I then am subjected to the same toxins I choose not to put in my body, however, I cannot hide away in my own house forever. So, I have had put up with it, from time to time (I'm a big fan of the night life, I like to get down....I like to boogie!)


When a town I used to live in considered banning public smokingin restaurants, I thought it would never pass. Many arguments we're raised, such as, from the restaurant management/owners, that costumers would simply go to the next town, to eat, and shop, etc, and they would loose all their business, smokers complained it was infringing on their rights (an illogical argument). It was pased, however, non of this ever happened, in fact, quite the opposite happened....after the successful experience in our town, nearly every town in our county has gone smoke free in the restaurants, and now they're considering getting rid of it in the bars (a few bars are smoke free already by choice)



I've never been against smoking, unless it infringes on my rights.

Well gee whiz, why don't the anti-smoking gang try to persuade the business owners to go non-smoking, instead of imposing the rule of a tyrannical majority over them.

Starting with the car example, the exhaust from cars is dispersed throughout the air we all share regardless of location within the city, state or country. There seems to be a sharp contrast between this exhaust and the momentary puff of second hand smoke generated from a cigarette. When people start driving their cars in bars and cafes with the carbon monoxide filling the rooms, then they'll make an excellent example when compared to ETS.

In regards to Cephus, no they can't. The government can't tell you what room of your house you can or can't smoke a cigarette. They can't tell you how to smoke that cigarette or how many you can smoke. The same should apply for private businesses as well. Let them ban smoking in the public buildings paid for with your tax dollars, but private businesses should be left to make their own decision.

Which brings me to your post, Andy Mosity. The club you mention should have the right to make the decision on their own. If their patrons don't like it, let them petition the owner to change his own rules and regulations. If it's enough of an issue to people, he'll abide by their wishes to keep the money rolling in. If he's too stubborn about the smoking or people are too lazy to complain, that's their own problem. The government isn't here to babysit.

In regards to a bus stop or the beach, how is that bothering you? Considering there's nowhere for the smoke to linger, you'd have to be standing almost on top of a smoker for it to effect you. And last time I checked, it isn't that difficult to simply take a step back.

Word.

However, there is no doubt that second hand smoke is harmful. So, until universal healthcare coverage is offered up by the government, smoking should be banned in public places.

When I go to the bar to consume alcohol (oh, how I love a good margarita in the summer...), I certainly wouldn't puke up on the guy next to me, so why does he have to blow smoke in my general direction.....?

While a bar or cafe may be a place of public gathering, you and others appear to be forgetting that they are private establishments. The government has no business telling private business owners what legal practices they can or can't allow on their property. If you don't like the way a business owner is running his business, take it to him or quit going. It's a matter for the consumer and the provider to work out, not the government.

There also seems to be some debate about the dangers of second hand smoke (ETS) if you'd care to join us in that debate. I'll provide a link later, but it is in the Health and Medicine Forum if you would like to participate.

Simple solution:

Ours being a government of, and for the people (at least in theory), this should be voted on.....

According to the Mayo Clinic Website, and verified by the CDC website, only 28% of American men smoke, and only 23% of american females smoke....conversely, only 23 percent of restaurants are smoke free......seems to be a strange imbalance...obviously my choices are limited....

I agree with you in principle, Abs, but it seems the groundwork for this sort of action is there. Private businesses were forced by law to integrate in the 1960s. I cannot open a bar and allow patrons to have sex on the stage (at least in most places...). I cannot open a cafe and allow patrons to smoke marijuana. It seems that there is a precedent for this kind of law. If something is banned in public, like having sex, it is also applied within a private business.

It's kind of a weird feeling - I do agree with you, but at the same time, this is the exact same argument segregationalists used during the Civil Rights struggle... huh.

Except nobody is segregating non-smokers.

I'm a non-smoker myself. While I don't like smoke, I have this uncanny ability to avoid it when I want to. I can go to a restaurant offering separate sections with minimal cross over. I get take my food to go or choose a restaurant which expressly prohibits smoking. As a non-smoker, I have a choice.

As long as anyone is bringing up segregation, though... this is precisely what people are attempting to do to the smokers. Rather than let business owners make the choice to be smoke free, there are local and state governments proposing to ban smoking even within the private establishment of individual business owners. The smokers won't have a choice of where to go because they won't have anywhere to go.

In regards to the Civil Rights struggle in particular, I don't see the comparison. With that situation there were individuals protected by the Constitution being denied the right to equal and fair treatment. Right now both the smoker and the non-smoker have the choice to frequent clubs and restaurants of their choice, regardless of that establishment's smoking policy. If either group disagrees with the policy of a favorite locale, it is within their ability and power to contact the owners seeking change.

Hugo brought up earlier the "rule of a tyrannical majority," which appears to be precisely what many non-smokers are seeking. This is not something to be voted on Andy Mosity because the legal business affairs of citizens is not the discretion of the majority. Neither I nor you can, or should, be told how to run our business by the vote of those who are not involved or affected.

You don't like the smoke in my club? Go down the street. Every club in town is smoking? Gather a group of non-smoking patrons and put together a comprehensive plan showing one or all the owners of these establishments the benefits in offering a smoke free environment. The government has no place in telling small business owners how to run their business (working within the law... cigarettes being a legal product).

The government can't tell you what you can do in your own home with legal products (they certainly can with illegal products though). They can, however, tell you what you can and can't do in public and they can protect the general health of the citizens. Smoke doesn't respect boundaries. Smoke doesn't stay in the smoking section. It goes wherever the air takes it. I cannot choose not to inhale smoke that's in the air, my lungs aren't selective in that regard.

Smokers interfere with the rights of non-smokers when they smoke in close proximity to them. Most communities have noise laws to deal with people who drive around with their radios all the way up, but noise pollution isn't a health risk, second hand smoke is. I have a reasonable right not to be affected by it. I can't stop them from smoking, but I certainly can tell them where they are permitted to smoke.

A business, just like a home, is private property. If I allow smoking in my home, or in my business, it should be my choice. If people don't wish to come into my environment, then go somewhere else!

Of course no one is really addressing the constitutionality of this issue. Sadly, I do not see smokers protected from state and local governments. It is obvious the federal government cannot constitutionally prohibit smoking on private property, short of an amendment.

The founding fathers would condemn the attack on private property rights, they would also hold that this is not a federal issue.