Second Hand Smoke Scam

Fox News ^ | October 17, 2003 | Steven Milloy

[CSM]

I could only laugh last April when I first heard about a study claiming that a smoking ban in Helena, Mont., cut the city

[Publius6961]

To simply call the people who only see sick people would be the same as doing a poll on whether or not welfare is worthwhile and only polling welfare recipients.

Why are you wasting your time?
The only improvement over ignorance is a dogmatic ignoramus.

To those pathetic creatures, every utterance they make is fact.
And they are always afflicted with "copernicosis", the incurable disease of being deluded into believing that they are the center of the universe.

[r9etb]

That happens a lot to psychosomatics.

I'm not psychosomatic. But I was gasping for breath.

[Madame Dufarge]

properly decided through the democratic process

No, in the majority of cases it's been decided by unelected Boards of Health, under the guise of "employee protection."

[r9etb]

If a person is to be judged by her enemies, I can die a happy woman.

And, happily for the rest of us, odds are you'll die sooner than if you didn't smoke.

[William Tell]

Modernman said: "You actually don't have a constitutional right to operate a business- a local or state government can pretty much ban any type of business they want and impose whatever (constitutional) rules they desire."

I know of no "business" exclusion to the Bill of Rights. The enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, and the other inalienable rights which are not enumerated, may not be infringed by the federal government.

The distinction that some of what we do is designed to profit us is a distinction invented by governments and collectivists. In our Founder's day, most of their daily activity was required to generate their livelihoods. I know of no intention on their part to allow a "business" distinction with regard to rights.

[Mears]

The government does not belong in the child rearing business,period.

Letting the government decide how to raise a child is putting us on a very slippery slope indeed,in fact it's frightening.

[r9etb]

may not be infringed by the federal government.

True -- but Modernman was talking about "local or state government[s]".

[Modernman]

I know of no "business" exclusion to the Bill of Rights. The enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, and the other inalienable rights which are not enumerated, may not be infringed by the federal government.

Nobody is talking about the federal government here. We're talking about local and state governments. Though, the federal government could ban the sale and use of tobacco in the country as a whole through the use of the commerce clause.

States can only ban activity that isn't protected under federal or state constitutions. I just haven't seen anyone on this thread come up with an explanation as to how banning smoking harms any right.

[Madame Dufarge]

Boy,you said it.I remember when we knew how to enjoy life.Everyone took care of themselves and no one blamed anyone else for their problems. It was live and let live.

They don't even know tough, my friend.

[r9etb]

The government does not belong in the child rearing business,period.

Letting the government decide how to raise a child is putting us on a very slippery slope indeed,in fact it's frightening.

So if I decide that "rasing my child" involves starvation and torture, the government should just stay out of my business? Of course not.

I think you'd answer a firm "no," I do not have that right. Which means that there is a threshold -- we can leave the specifics undecided here -- that a parent must not be allowed cross, on pain of losing his children.

[qam1]

for women especially -- you often get to enjoy the the beauties of "smoker's face.

Well lets look at some Women Smokers

Nicole Kidman	Demi Moore	Claudia Schiffer
Brittney Spears	Ann Coulter	Shannen Dorherty

Now lets look at Anti Smoking Women

Ruth Ann Miner

Christine Quinn

Stanton Glantz

[metesky]

In jurisdictions with smoking bans, the people have spoken.

You would be correct in the few places that a referendum vote has been held, but the vast majority of these bans have been promulgated by town or city councils and health boards, in all cases using bad or phoney science.

They would be much more honest if they had the huevoes to come and say, "We're banning smoking because we don't like it, it's smelly."

I maintain my premise that these banners have never been in a workingman's bar in their lives and would be petrified to do so.

[William Tell]

Modernman said: "States can only ban activity that isn't protected under federal or state constitutions. I just haven't seen anyone on this thread come up with an explanation as to how banning smoking harms any right."

Does banning coffee harm a right?

Does banning carbonated beverages harm a right?

Does banning beverages with sugar added harm a right?

Does banning fluoridated water harm a right?

Does banning non-fluoridated water harm a right?

Does banning both fluoridated and non-fluoridated water harm a right?

Does banning chlorinated and non-chlorinated water harm a right?

Does banning concealed carry of firearms harm a right?

Does banning of non-concealed carry of firearms harm a right?

Does banning of both concealed and non-concealed carry of firearms harm a right?

The Supreme Court of Alaska recently ruled that it is not a crime to have small amounts of marijuana in one's home. They have reasoned that such possession is protected by a right to privacy. This decision is without regard to whether marijuana is harmful or not, as far as I know.

[Madame Dufarge]

That would be a case where property rights are in tension with the rights of other people to not be harmed. Children are good subjects for the example due to their inability to voluntarily leave the premises.

Parents who didn't restrain from smoking where the health of their children was proven to be in jeopardy would be irresponsible.

[Publius6961]

The denser the population, the more a person's habits and activities will irritate others, and the more those others will turn to big government as a means to control you.

That's wonderful!
Let me know when we reach the "offensive" threshhold for the disgustingly obese, the ugly, the cellulite farms, the huge noses...

Maybe there is a silver lining to all this.

[VRWC_minion]

recently learned that Nazi Germany was the first government to ban smoking in public places.

The American colonies did it long before.

[Madame Dufarge]

And the point is also that harm on private property is still harm. One can probably make a fair argument for allowing smoking in a restaurant or bar.

I can keep repeating just as long as you do.

Prove that there's "harm."

[qam1]

I can't think of any argument that can support the proposition that you have a right to smoke.

As long as cigarettes remain legal I can see why a private property owner has the right to allow you to smoke and why these bans are 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. The Antis even use this argument that even if you lose the smokers you will make it up with the nonsmokers. Well suppose you don’t want to cater to nonsmokers instead you want to cater (Assemble with) the smokers.

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. It's no different if Mayor Bloomberg decided he also didn't like tall buildings because they block his view of the ocean and made a law that no building could be more than 30 stories (Don't laugh anything is possible with this idiot). Would that mean the owners of these buildings like the Empire State and Chrysler should pay to have their buildings they built or brought torn down to 30 stories even though the government isn't directly seizing their property? No of course not. He could pass a law that prevented any NEW buildings from being over 30 stories but if he wants the existing buildings torn down he and the city of New York would have to pay. Another analogy is if Mayor Bloomberg decided he didn’t like golf and banned the sport which would essentially make the property of golf course owners taken away by the government.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Waddya bet,Glantz smokes in private?

[Mears]

Nope.I still don't want the government involved. The churches and non government non-profits should monitor and help these children,not the government.

Will some children fall through the cracks? Probably---,but I don't want Orwell's Big Brother government telling us how to raise our children.