New Orleans Bans Smoking Pretty Much Everywhere

Washington Free Beacon ^ | January 23, 2015 5:01 am | Elizabeth Harrington

[Svartalfiar]

New Orleans passed a far-reaching smoking ban on Thursday that prohibits lighting up in bars, casinos, private clubs—even in the car while waiting in line at a drive-thru.

Claiming there is no “constitutional right” to smoke, the New Orleans City Council unanimously voted to outlaw smoking and electronic cigarettes in indoor and outdoor public places.

[Axenolith]

Ignoring it is the actual purpose of it. Laws like this aren’t there to “work”, they’re there to be an available club when a square peg needs putting back into it’s round hole place...

[publius911]

I think if the City Council was sued collectively and individually, there would be financial nationwide support.

A little nothing town in northern California, IONE has banned smoking outdoors for years.

And never been challenged either...

I wish I had time, next time I am in the neighborhood, to challenge the total outdoor ban (with ecigarettes.) Better yet, with a fake plastic cigarette, which I have used for hilarity in department stores and restaurants in the past (it's actually a pen.)

The neurotics swooned at the sight of it. From 100 feet away. Upwind.
Not sure if it's a citation offense, or an arrest scenario.

A Constitutional Democracy does not allow arbitrary and capricious laws. A majority vote of demonstrable morons out in the boonies cannot run public outdoor areas to conform to their whim. Even as they are practicing their perversions and killing humans in the womb.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Nudity, prostitution, public drunkenness, and looting are cultural icons in NOLA.... But SMOKING?????

Hey, babe... flash for those beads, but don't let us catch you holding a cigarette, LOL.

[publius911]

don’t remember anyone ever getting cancer from showing their t*ts...

Perhaps not indoors.
Outdoors? Lots of traffic accidents and broken bones...

[rktman]

While waiting in your car at a drive up atm? Really? Ridiculouser and ridiculouser. Thanks there mz. commie organizer. So I’m guessin’ this is currently only Orleans Parish? Never mind the common everyday thugs, go after those evil smokers. Should make for an intersting Mardi Gras. Anti smoking revenues up when they bust out of towners who don’t know about the new “law”.

[Drango]

A Constitutional Democracy does not allow arbitrary and capricious laws.

Hyperbole much? Free citizens, freely voting or via their representatives have every right to regulate smoking.

[ansel12]

The way it works in California.

[left that other site]

My thoughts exactly! LOL!

[Kirkwood]

Does this include smoking guns?

[txmissy]

There goes probably half of their tourism revenue.

[Ditter]

Read my post #9 and then if you do vacation in NOLA you won’t have to wonder why your feet stick to the sidewalk sometimes.

[uncitizen]

Exactly.

NO used to have at least an appearance of freedom. Granted the freedoms were to do things one shouldn’t do, but it was freedom nonetheless. One could walk down the street (not all streets of course) while enjoying an adult beverage and light up a smoke in almost any bar or restaurant.

What next? Will they outlaw the delicious fattening southern food? Or have they done that already?

[Albion Wilde]

Claiming there is no “constitutional right” to smoke, the New Orleans City Council unanimously voted to outlaw smoking...

But if they are "gay married", that's constitutionally ok. Right.

[Adder]

There’s no constitutional right to ban it either....

[publius911]

Hyperbole much? Free citizens, freely voting or via their representatives have every right to regulate smoking.

Hyperbole mucher?

Novel assertion, that the Constitutional restrictions on government, by fiat or "freely voting or via their representatives" have every right to regulate anything?

Ever hear of the Federal Rules of Evidence? None, to my knowledge, have ever been applied to anti-smoking challenges of laws at any level of government.

Ever hear of the U.N. WHO study on second hand smoke?
The longest and most detailed study ever conducted on Second hand smoke (None better has ever even been attempted) came up with the "wrong" answer, and was buried so deep you probably haven't even heard of it.

How about Dr. (Professor) Bruce Ames and his lifelong study of natural carcinogens that the smoking Nazis couldn't care less about?

That kind of ignorant hyperbole?

This may seem unrelated, but it is not. How many trillion$ have been spent on the pro-sodomy crowd to save them from themselves and their disgusting lifestyle?
How many innocents have died on account of that? (Think transfusions.)

[Finny]

The Constitution regulates the government, not us. It enumerates many, but certainly not all, things that the government cannot deprive its citizens of. Free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom from search and seizure etc.

Oh, BRAVO!!! Well said! BUMP!

Government in America was intended to be a servant. Its overuse has turned it into a tyrant.

[Svartalfiar]

So, after actually reading the ordinance, I think I've found an arguable loophole.

Smoking means inhaling, exhaling, burning, carrying, or possessing any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, including hookahs and marijuana, whether natural or synthetic, in any manner or in any form. “Smoking” also includes the use of an electronic smoking device which creates an aerosol or vapor, in any manner or in any form, or the use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking in this Article

So, most pipe/cigars are usually not inhaled, and as such, are not intended to be inhaled. So all of the bans on smoking don't apply most cigars/pipes. Indeed, the secondhand smoke definition actually makes this distinction, so the city can't argue puffing is included in the above definition of smoking. Also, the actual bans don't mention second-hand smoke, so that is ok. Since they

Secondhand smoke means smoke emitted from a lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, including hookahs and marijuana, whether natural or synthetic, in any manner or in any form, when the smoker is not inhaling, smoke emitted at the mouthpiece during puff drawing, and smoke exhaled by the smoker. Secondhand smoke also includes aerosol or vapor from the use of an electronic smoking device emitted, in any manner or in any form, when the smoker is not inhaling, at the mouthpiece during puff drawing, and when the smoker is exhaling.

[dhs12345]

If pot becomes legal, I wonder if that includes pot. /sarc.

Oh the irony.

Anyway, probably not because pot is medicinal and good for you.

[Drango]

Too much rambling to understand your argument.

[Svartalfiar]

If pot becomes legal, I wonder if that includes pot. /sarc.

Actually, it does. The actual ordinance defines 'smoking' as:

Smoking means inhaling, exhaling, burning, carrying, or possessing any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, including hookahs and marijuana, whether natural or synthetic, in any manner or in any form.