Constitutional Means to Fight Smoking Bans

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

[bob3443]

Constitutional Arguments Against Smoking Bans

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Smoking is a freedom of speech i.e. personal liberty. Such bans are tantamount to precluding peaceable assemblage in that those who may choose to smoke would have to separate themselves from the assembly.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Converting private property for public use refers to using property for the benefit of the population at large. To wit: condemning land for the use of building a municipal government center. The property owner will receive fair compensation.

If Government regulates the use of private property in such a way as will harm the profitability of a business located on said private property, or the fair market value of the property itself, and by such regulation declare or imply that said property is in fact public, it stands to reason that the government in the position of owing just compensation to the owner of said property.

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

In order to be compensated for business losses directly attributed to a smoking ban, business owners will have the right to demand a jury trial if such losses are in excess of $20.00

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Were a smoking ban to be enacted and said ban was violated by either the owner of a business or a customer of the business, such fines could be no more than a minimum fine imposed on any other minor infraction of the law. Further, any action taken by the enforcing body of the government can not be so excessive as to destroy the business itself. Such action might be, but not limited to. Criminal prosecution, excessive fines, graduated fines, cancellation of food, liquor or other types of licenses or any other action that could be construed to be use of power to intimidate the private property owner or client or guest of said owner.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The Constitution is indeed of the people, by the people and for the people. The passage of any type of ban is a “bad faith”: activity local and state government that violates the spirit and the intent of the Constitution. Such bans further pits the general desires of a specific group of people against the rights of the private property owner and the clients of said property owner.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The rights’ of the people are always preeminent to the rights of the government.

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. A ban of any kind by its very definition is an abridgement of the privileges of the citizens. Bans create an inequality as they would relate to the protection of the laws.

Amendment XVIII Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress. (The fact that this amendment was repealed I feel speaks to the fact that the government overstepped its bounds by ratifying an amendment that was unto itself patently unconstitutional. It further demonstrates how even as great as our Constitution is, it can still be held hostage when those who govern us lose sight of the true purpose of this document.)

Amendment XXI Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

[Gabz]

Please read 57 as I am curious what you would do about such a thing. Wonder if these folks are allowed to FART? Wonder if someone interviews for a job if they are excluded because of their smell? We all have a smell of some type.

By the time you get to my response of this, you will already know I responded to #57, but you raise some very interesting points here.

I do not believe that personal preferences, or even allergies to "scents" should have any bearing o on employment or banning of the use of products..........never have and never will.

I have encountered people who claim they would know not to even bother interviewing a person because they could tell they were smokers by the smell on their resume. And I actually had an interview for a job with one of them some years back. When I was offered the job a few days later, I turned it down.

I ran into the guy at a function a few weeks later and he wanted to know why I had turned down the job, because he really wanted me to take it. I reached into the ashtray behind me and picked up my cigarette and just said "I smoke." Talk about a red-faced person. He had not clue I smoked, even though he was one of the "I can tell a smoker from their smell" types.

[SheLion]

Secondhand Smoke Scam

The results were issued in typical junk science style via a quick-and-dirty slideshow presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology (search). Six months later, the study still is not available to the public.

Slick junk scientists often choose the “science-by-press conference” mode of releasing results because they know their immediate audience likely will not be able to ask probing questions -- a tough thing to do when only sketchy details are hurriedly presented to people with no familiarity of the research conducted.

Second-hand Smoke is Harmful to Science

Many postings look more like a witch hunt than a scientific debate."

9-16-03 - Looking for a surer method of being ripped apart than entering a lion's den covered with catnip? Conduct the most exhaustive, longest-running study on second-hand smoke and death. Find no connection. Then rather than being PC and hiding your data in a vast warehouse next to the Ark of the Covenant, publish it in one of the world's most respected medical journals.

Smoke claim disputed

Dr Proctor said passive smoking could cause problems for asthmatics and there were people who did not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke but there was no scientific basis for a ban in public.

Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official

The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.

click here

Second Hand Smoke: The Evidence

click here

 

Smokers’ rights cloud ASHRAE IAQ debate

Dozens of bar owners and representatives from casinos, restaurant industry trade groups and tobacco companies spoke during the two-hour open forum. Many of the speakers came to the forum from Canada, where several cities have passed or are considering totally banning smoking in restaurants, bars and bingo parlors. Most of the restaurant owners said they have lost or will lose up to 25% of their business if a smoking ban in enacted in their communities.

 

Asthma: The Politics of Blaming Tobacco Smoke

Fewer people smoke now than ever before, and smoking restrictions and bans have resulted in even less exposure to secondhand smoke.  Yet, adult and childhood asthma cases have increased from approximately 6.7 million in 1980 to 17.3 million in 1998, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

Essays on the Anti-Smoking Movement

The argument that this is being done "for smokers' own good" is demeaning: our bodies are not government property. The argument that smokers cost society money is specious: about one third of us considerately die before cashing in on social security. The argument that smoke is harmful to others is nothing but a subterfuge: the risk of second-hand smoke exposure has been so outrageously distorted that it amounts to an outright lie.

 

 

In 1998 the link made by the EPA Report in 1993 between secondary smoke and cancer was thrown out in a Federal Court because the statistics were bent to support a predetermined conclusion and normal scientific guidelines were ignored.

 

THE EPA ETS FRAUD
THE WORLD HAS BEEN CHEATED BY THE ANTI-TOBACCO CARTEL

 

 

Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, Department of Energy  study finds

PASSIVE SMOKE

Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke

THE PASSIVE SMOKE WHOPPER

The Facts About Second Hand Smoke
(Finally)

It may be politically correct to attack secondhand smoke, but it is not scientifically correct nor, in the Court’s opinion, legally correct.

[Gabz]

How many "Action Plans" do you think are on the drawing board right now?

Forget about them on the drawing board........they're already working on implementing them.

My daughter is only 6.......I was called a child abuser YEARS before I even had one of my own. And to be honest, that was one of the nicer things I was called, the others I won't post as I would probably be banned from here for them.

[Diverdogz]

BTW, I believe that secondhand smoke stuff causing others cancer when casually smelled in a restaurant environment has not been scientifically proven any more than global warming has.

I don't know whether secondhand smoke causes cancer or not....I'm inclined to believe it possible it does if one is exposed to sufficient quantities (i.e. live with an indoor smoker or work at a smokey bar), and the risk is very minimal if one is only occasionally exposed at a restaurant or something.

Florida banned cigarette smoking in most restaurants about a year and a half ago. Most of these business have not suffered a loss in revenue. From a nonsmoker's perspective, I hate that the state is being a nanny, but am thrilled to go into a restaurant and not be subjected to smoke. I enjoy my meals much more when there is no smoking. If something good were to come out of the nanny-state-no-smoking rule, I believe some restaurants would continue to be nonsmoking if the smoking ban were repealed. I'd patronize such places, because again, I don't like to smell smoke when I eat. Nonsmoking sections don't cut it....but the decision should be the property owners instead of the state.

[Gabz]

I've referred to Philip Morris as hypocritical on many occassion, and at times have wondered if I was right.

I have finally come to the conclusion that I am because they choose to protect themselves to the detriment of their customers.

Everything PM has done in recent years, in regard to it's tobacco business, has been against the very people that keeps hurting that segment of their business viable. They don't give a flying flip about the people who purchase their tobacco products.......they just want to make sure that most users of tobacco products purchase only theirs.

they work with governments to accomplish this.......they don't oppose bans and they don't oppose tax increases.....and in exchange they get deals to enact laws that in the end hurt little guys., and always the consumer.

I watched them do it in Delaware and I'm now seeing it in Virginia.

[RandallFlagg]

Can I get a bumper sticker that says that? LOL

Click my name and make your own.

[Annie03]

"So simple, it's complicated. *rolling eyes*"

LOL....me too.

[Annie03]

Great story....lol.

[exnavychick]

Thanks...the more, the merrier...heh heh. :)

[Gabz]

In which case, I'm doubly screwed... I actually BAKE THEM COOKIES and let them eat French fries!

ACCCCCKKKK.........I do the same, and I make fried chicken, and hamburgers and lasagna, and horrors...we love making milk shakes. Oh and candy, chips, and soda.

Good grief, what ails these people?

[RandallFlagg]

MMMMmmmmm. I used to make milkshakes when I was younger. I'll have to take ip up again.

[Gabz]

These fools are either stupid or they're the enemy. Spurn them.

all 3.

[Annie03]

"Asthma: The Politics of Blaming Tobacco Smoke
Fewer people smoke now than ever before, and smoking restrictions and bans have resulted in even less exposure to secondhand smoke. Yet, adult and childhood asthma cases have increased from approximately 6.7 million in 1980 to 17.3 million in 1998, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

This is a strange thing. My husband contracted asthma 2 years after he quit smoking. Smoke doesn't bother him unless he inhales smoke directly. I started smoking in the house again a few months after my dd turned 3. She and my stepson are the healthiest kids I know...they do not catch everything they are exposed to. I've seen many kids these days with asthma...who's parents don't smoke (or do not smoke in the house). Having researched alot about asthma (in an attempt to help dh manage his), I have found that smoke is NOT amongst the top triggers for an episode. The top 2 are cold air and exercise.

[exnavychick]

I don't know...but I betcha a little fiber would go a long way towards improving their outlook on life!

ROFL!!

[Annie03]

ACK! We are Jezebels, child abusers and generally unsavory people. I just made deep fried corn tortilla chips to go with our chile. And I plan to make a nice batch of peanut butter cookies this week too. Oh, the humanity! LOLOL

[Gabz]

following that line of reasoning, public nudity laws are tantamount to precluding peacable assemblage in that those who may choose to go naked have to seperate themselves from the assembly.

No, it isn't, because we are not talking about being in public, but rather patronizing private establishments.

There are laws permitting nudity in certain private establishments and forbidding them in other places...provided certain regulations are met.

Smoking bans in private business establishments, that have met all laws and regulations prior to such bans is different.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Anybody with two bits in their pocket can force their taste in music or lack there of on a room full of their betters.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

Particularly on a site which values truth and information.

You seem to be leaving out the most important trait of this site. More than anything this site is about FReedom. That includes personal bad habits too. You are scolding us for the thing that means the most to us.

FRedom from those who would like to push their beliefs and lifestyles on us.

I am sorry you lost a loved one but because you got hurt is no reason to remove my liberties. This is a Democratic point of view. You know what's best for us? That is better left to personal choice.

[Gabz]

What about homosexual smokers? I think there are a lot of those.

Not if you listen to some of the MAIN high-financed promoters of anti-smokerism.

One of them is a major promoter of gay adoption. He contends that as gay non-smokers he and his partner are better parents to their adopted daughters, than my husband and I are for our natural daughter, because my husband and I smoke.

It seems to me, but this is just my personal view, that the vast majority of the vocal pro-gay people are RABID anti-smokers. I've just seen it for so long.

I have a number of homosexual friends, and have for years....everyone of them who smoke oppose the idea of gay marriage or special privileges based on sexual orientation. They just don't want to be shunned, just treated as contributing members of society.

[RandallFlagg]

BTW, I finally got around to buying myself an old lighter I used to have in my teens. It was called a Beattie-Jet. It was like a Zippo, but shot a flame about 10" from a pipe when tilted. Any of you folks ever heard of them?

I'm telling you, it's gonna be a collecter's item.

The ones I'm getting don't have those engravings on them, though.