It's not about smoking, it's about constitutional guarantees!

American Constitutional Research Service ^ | 29 December 2002

[Great Dane]

It really is refreshing to see non-smokers with so much common sense, thank you.

[Leisler]

He's the village idiot of smoking threads. You never know when he's going to appear from behind the sheep pen, all muddy, his pants down around his unshod feet and grinning from ear to ear.

[kstewskis]

Thanks GD. I hate cigarette smoke as much as the next non smoker, but I think in cases like this, you really need to think past your nose....[grin]....

[inquest]

I don't know whom they think they're trying to "protect" with this law. I'm a pedestrian myself, and if they outlaw smoking inside an establishment, guess where everyone's going to go in order to smoke? Of course, outside where I have to walk through it. I don't know about the constitutional points the author raises, but he's spot on when he says that if this were truly a "public health" issue, it would be banned outdoors, where the public is. When it's indoors in a private establishment where no one is forced to enter, then that's exactly where it isn't a problem for public health.

[dirtboy]

It's not about smoking, it's about constitutional guarantees!

Sorry, there is no Constitutional right to smoke per se. The Constitution leaves that decision to the states under the 10th Amendment. I think a blanket smoking ban is stupid, but not unconstitutional.

[Madame Dufarge]

Poor, poor sad and lonely Tacis, desperately seeking attention again.

Still mistaking smoker threads for a cyber therapy session, lashing out at your betters and trying to make people believe that you're capable of enjoying anything.

Such a bitter person, too little to be considered a tragic figure. Just sort of a Tasmanian Devil cartoonish thing, incapable of even being interesting.

[inquest]

They weren't saying that the outlawing of smoking is itself unconstitutional, but that the way NYC was trying to restrict it was. The reasoning is that the fact that they don't outlaw it completely, but rather target private establishments, makes it a discriminatory attempt to deprive property owners of the use of their property. To them, that makes it unconstitutional, although I'd agree that they need to do little more explaining in order to convince me of that.

[mg39]

What's with that cartoon?

[Great Dane]

Sorry, there is no Constitutional right to smoke per se. The Constitution leaves that decision to the states under the 10th Amendment. I think a blanket smoking ban is stupid, but not unconstitutional.

Gee, you mean to tell me that the constitution has special mentioning of driving a car, overeating and all the rest..... I must have missed something, please bring in these paragraphs.

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

You dumb tobacco adicts simply don't understand how offensive your addiction is. If a public business is there for me to be a customer, just because I go in doesn't mean I have to be subjected to any bahavior that some idiot and the owner think is OK. Make it a private club (like drinking places in dry areas), but if it is public, then comply with the standards for the conduct of public business

So what if the government went the other way and demanded that everyone smoke in public and smoke in private establishments? You do realize this is the same thing? As long as you reverse the "junk science" you can reverse the decision, once again without noting our Constitutional Rights.

1. I do not smoke.

2. I do not enjoy second-hand smoke.

3. I have made the DECISION not to smoke.

4. I like the fact that I can change my mind if I see fit.

5. I have the right to "reject" an establishment if the smoke bothers me. '

This is about RIGHTS, and you don't understand that you are clearly the "dumb" citizen. I want the option to smoke. I want the option to drive an SUV. I want the option to not wear my seatbelt. I want the option to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

Now, I will argue that tax payers should "not" be responsible for any ailments a smoker suffers that is correlated with their habits. It's just as absurd as paying for "gender" modifications in California.

Bow down to socialism and you'll find yourself in a tyranny. You better stand up for your RIGHT regardless of whether you like smoke.

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

When the righteous army of socialists come for the free people of New York come inland to flyover country where the walls of oppression are being dismantled by the de election of socialists that have already been replaced by patriots. Once again we will join forces and drive the enemy of the constitution back into the sea on both coasts and both borders. So come on you antis' you are either with us or against us. (us defined)American Citizens that love the constitution and personal freedom more than life itself. This is just a scenario that I hope never happens however if the attack on freedoms continue in the manner of the last two decades,Who knows???

I predict a civil war if the trends do not reverse themselves. The people living in the breadbasket will never succomb to the idiotic-socialism on the coasts. The people are becoming ever different in respect to politics, religion, and ideology. If one group tries to forcefully push their agenda on the other, it will be time to take up arms. Isn't that pretty much what happened on the last go around?

[dirtboy]

Gee, you mean to tell me that the constitution has special mentioning of driving a car, overeating and all the rest..... I must have missed something, please bring in these paragraphs.

The point is, the Constitution, through the 9th and 10th Amendments (if they were actually used), would not allow the feds to either ban smoking OR tell states that they cannot ban smoking. Anything that is not enumerated as a right under the Constitution is therefore a STATE or Local issue. You would seek an activist reading of the 9th to allow the feds to halt states from prohibiting smoking, but federal activism of that manner is exactly how we got Roe v. Wade. Best to just call the NYC smoking ban exactly what it is, stupid and a restriction on the general rights of smokers and property owners, instead of seeking some constitutional protection for smoking.

[metesky]

Now, I will argue that tax payers should "not" be responsible for any ailments a smoker suffers that is correlated with their habits. It's just as absurd as paying for "gender" modifications in California.

YKC, I think we should be arguing that taxpayers should not be responsible for ANY ailments another person suffers.

If one wishes to help others out of charity, all well and good, but when we are forced to contribute for the upkeep and health needs of people we neither know nor care about it makes cynics and scofflaws of us all.

[SheLion]

And yes, I am a non smoker. Never smoked, never will. If a place is too smokey, then I leave. If I request a non smoking section in a resteraunt, the smoke eaters take care of the smoke, and my meal isn't ruined.

You’re exactly what America needs. Someone who doesn't want to infringe upon the rights of someone else. Thanks so much!! There is room enough for everyone!

The smoke eaters are great. I remember some places were even too smoky for ME!

[SheLion]

Sorry, there is no Constitutional right to smoke per se. The Constitution leaves that decision to the states under the 10th Amendment. I think a blanket smoking ban is stupid, but not unconstitutional.

Email the author.

[qam1]

Sorry, there is no Constitutional right to smoke per se. The Constitution leaves that decision to the states under the 10th Amendment. I think a blanket smoking ban is stupid, but not unconstitutional.

Amendment #1 - Freedom of Assembly/Association

Smoking bans chase people away whether that’s the intention or not it is what happens! So smoking bans are an infringement of people’s right to assemble. Yes Freedom of assembly doesn’t just mean assembly at a political protest, Assembling at a bar or restaurant is still protected under the constitution.

Amendment #1 - Free Speech

Mayor Bloomberg of New York opened this can of worms with his loophole for his friends and this is what is going to burn him and other cigarette nazis around the country big time. His loophole allows business to have smoking if they are having a promotion for Tobacco products, It was intended for his bigwig cigar smoking buddies for their annual fest at the Marriott Hotel. However now all businesses can just throw promotions all the time, trying to stop a promotion would be a direct violation of freedom of speech. Actually hopefully this at other places where there are smoking bans like California & Delaware catches on.

Plus Hey if you can burn the American flag and a cross on private property why not a cigarette.

Amendment #4 - Warrantless searches

How in the world can the Smoke police just go onto private property to search if people are smoking? They should have a warrant this is America not Nazi Germany

Amendment #5 - Eminent Domain

By banning smoking on private property the government is essentially taking that property away. This is especially true if the property due to a previous lighter smoking had a separate section build just for smoking.

[PistolPaknMama]

Setting a drug-laced weed on fire in a public place because you like the effect of the drug is a "right"? That's laughable.

Restaurants and bars are not public places. Until the government takes them over and funds them with tax money, they are privately owned businesses where the public is free to go.

I have heard of restaurants and bars where nudity and even public sex is allowed. If I don't like that kind of activity, I would just not go to those places. If I do like that, then I would seek out the places where it's allowed. If this was allowed at all the bars and restaurants, then I would just stay home since I would rather not be around that.

Just as anti-smoking nazis should go to places that don't allow smoking and leave the PRIVATE businesses to make their own decisions about their own customers WITHOUT government interference. And yes, that is a right.

[Eastbound]

Great post. Will hard-copy and drop it off at the mayor's office, newspaper and smoke shop.