Posted on 01/13/2005 11:53:07 AM PST by 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.
"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."
Truth eloquently stated bump.
Exactly. That's why I shudder every time I hear a non-smoker state that being around SHS causes them to have an asthma attack.
"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."
That is just wrong.
That's quite a lighter. Does it still work?
That's quite a lighter. Does it still work?
According to the ads, they do. I ordered three from Ebay.
(Actually, I paid my co-worker here to do it for me. I haven't an Ebay account)
No, I've never heard of them. I used to have a replica of a WWII era Zippo type lighter. I can't remember what kind of lighter it was, but I picked it up at a Harley Davidson store about 10 years ago. It had an arm with a cap that went over the wheel. The wheel was turned 90 degrees from what they are now. It was pretty cool, but probably not a collector's item.
" Exactly. That's why I shudder every time I hear a non-smoker state that being around SHS causes them to have an asthma attack."
How about a 9 yo little brat...ah, boy? I was smoking OUTSIDE. He poked his head out of the house to tell me to "watch my smoking" because of his asthma. He was a little whiner in general...demanded PB&J because he refused to eat turkey and trimmings for Thanksgiving. (Everything except dessert that is). Wasn't his house either.
Since you are invoking truth and information, can you provide some truth to your statement?????
Some of us enjoy it, but we don't laud it - and I don't know anyone here who condemns anyone being negative.
We have no use for broadbrushes, such as you have used here, that are based upon opinion, not fact.
Smoking tobacco happens to be something a lot of people do, for various reasons. Those that choose to do it are pretty bloody sick and tired of being called everything from trailer trash to murderers. I think smokers have valid points with the vitriol they are subjected to, and I definitely know that businesses that would like to cater to them have been destroyed by those pushing the vitriol.
When my daughter was in middle school, the teachers started that 'make your parents quit smoking' garbage.
She would come home and stick her nose in the air and told us we had to stop smoking.
I said "Listen. I smoked long before you were born, so knock it off." She did.
Not to mention the extortion aspect of it.
LOL! I'm waiting for the teachers to try that with my Sons. I may just send them back to school with a note that says, "Please explain where the subject matter states, "Reading, Writing, Arithmatic, imposition and propaganda."
Yeah, I remember those D.A.R.E. classes, along with the annual celebration of the Great American Smokeout when I was in school. I remember telling my parents about it, and they explained the facts to me. :)
When I was a preschooler, though, my mom says I would always find her (never my father's) cigarettes, shred them and flush them down the toilet! LOL
Oh, I agree, but that won't stop the otherwise unemployables at the American Legacy Foundation from trying to make it a major issue.
That's exactly what they are: otherwise unemployable.
if I had 1/10th of the budget of ALF, it would get shut down for the fraud it is.
Dadgummit! Talk about stealing someone's thunder!
I'm going on 47, and I remember seeing commercials when I was a kid....so I bugged my parents too. My mother (one of those PITA ex-smokers) loves to remind me. lol. She never came up with that great answer you had. :)
There is no principal in the anti-smokers.........they are all "me, me, me, me" all the time.
LOL! Very true. Then they accuse us of the same thing...geesh.
I have no problem with making accomodations for people that have specific health problems..........but there has to be a limit.
I have a huge problem with raw shrimp....my eyes swell shut, and then the swelling keeps moving. Based upon the idea of the smoking bans and "scent" bans, I should have the right to demand a raw shrimp ban.......including in the local seafood market or restaurant.
Of course, most who are pushing the smoking bans think I am am idiot for proposing any such thing. Yet they fail to acknowlege more people die every year from reactions to food than ever do from exposure to the smoke of a cigarette smoker.
As to my shrimp problem, I just avoid spending any time around it. We love to eat shrimp in this house and get wonderful fresh shrimp.......hubby deals with it and I stay in another room. Once it's cooked, I'm fine.
gee, I've got a physical problem to something and know how to avoid exposure.......seems to be such a foreign concept to the antis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.