Constitutional Means to Fight Smoking Bans

Smokers United ^ | January 11,2005 | Robert Hayes Halfpenny

[appalachian_dweller]

((( ping )))

[The Teen Conservative]

Smoking isn't free speech! And the Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...", not "There shall be no impendiment to..."

[RonF]

Smoking is a freedom of speech i.e. personal liberty.

There's a non sequitir for you. What logic lies behind this statement?

[newgeezer]

Smoking is a freedom of speech

Sorry, you lost me there. I won't bother reading any further.

But, lest you get the wrong idea, I believe property owners have the right to set whatever rules they want with regard to whether and where smoking is permitted on their property. (On public property, the public decides, either through a ballot initiative or by proxy through their elected officials.)

[LoneSome Journey]

What about the right of others to walk down the street and not be forced to inhale poluted air spewed out by someone with a burning pacifier stuck into their mouth?

[Phantom Lord]

You have no such right.

[Just another Joe]

While I would like to agree with Halfpenny, I think that the arguments he uses are disingenous.

To me it should be just like any other health regulation. It shouldn't be allowed to be viewed as a health issue unless there is a overwhelming need and proven scientifically by a majority of reputable scientific minds that ETS is the hazard to health that the antis scream it is.

I think that there may be a Constitutional argument against the regulation of smoking in a privately owned business, I don't think that Halfpenny has hit the right argument yet.

JMO

[Robert DeLong]

Sorry, as a smoker I cannot buy into this argument at all. Smoking is not a form of speech. However, if you get throat cancer it may restrict or even prohibit your speech.

[trubluolyguy]

If burning a flag is free speech, why NOT smoking?

[Gabz]

You may be correct.....

However the rest of the sentence is correct: Such bans are tantamount to precluding peaceable assemblage in that those who may choose to smoke would have to separate themselves from the assembly.

[Gabz]

Thanks AD for the heads up!

[Zon]

You have no such right.

Restaurant kitchen exhaust-fan odors "encroaching" on people walking by, perfume, cologne, vehicle exhaust, farts, etc. And what about my right to not hear the delusional man sporting a tin-foil cap preaching on the street corner 

[newgeezer]

If burning a flag is free speech, why NOT smoking?

Just what political point do you suggest people are trying to make by the act of smoking?

[Uncle Vlad]

Are we saying that you can burn the flag in a public place, but don't inhale the smoke?

[newgeezer]

However the rest of the sentence is correct: "Such bans are tantamount to precluding peaceable assemblage in that those who may choose to smoke would have to separate themselves from the assembly."

Whether to smoke or assemble, they'll have to make a choice. Go naked or assemble, be a public nuisance or assemble, .... Life is full of choices.

[trubluolyguy]

Reply to post 14...


No political point at all. I just get so frustrated as private business owners are forced to change what goes on in their businesses due to political correctnes BS. You can't even smoke in bars anymore in many places. In California you can't smoke OUTSIDE. These local ordinances are ridiculous, alothough I agree the constitution does not allow for smoking. It also does not allow for abortion, but that didn't stop anyone now did it?

[SheLion]

[zoosha]

If a smoker wants to smoke, my answer to him is, "Certainly,BUT SMOKE THE DAMN WEED OUTSIDE. I DON'T NEED CANCER FROM YOUR BUTT."

[newgeezer]

I think I agree with what you said in that post but, I'm left wondering why you tried to draw a parallel between flag-burning and smoking in regard to free speech.

If your point was that flag-burning is not or should not be protected under the free speech clause, I disagree. That's another thread, though.