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.
That's because you know how to avoid making your problems other people's fault.
Imagine that. And from an EEEEVILLLL smoker, too!
Oh, but see, us smokers are different, because we are all rude, careless litterers who dump our butts wherever and blow smoke in helpless people's faces, dontcha know. We go out of our way to offend them, on purpose, just to be rebellious.
BTW, is it just shrimp you are so allergic to, or is it a general seafood type allergy? Just curious, you can tell me to MYOB, if ya want. :)
Oh, man.........don't get me started on that.
I remember Dennis Prager one day saying that "health" is the new morals. That means: abortion? Fine! S&M conventions at family venues? Okay! Gay Days at Disneyworld? Nothing wrong with that! How-to sex ed in school? Why not! SMOKE??? You idiot, scum, heathen, selfish, immoral piece of.....
This I could go off on for pages and pages and hours and hours...........and I have.
I have actually been told by more than one anti-smoker extremist that my daughter would have been better off had I had an abortion than allow her to be born to smoking parents. There are gay adoption activists who believe they will be better parents than a married heterosexual cuple who are smokers.
The "nasty" names you list being placed upon smokers are actually nice compared to be what I have been called, even in person.
I can't MYOB. I'm stuck at work for the next 10 hours.
Red Lobster is one of the few resturants that I can eat almost everything they have on their menus. (Not all at once, mind you, but it's tempting.)
BTW, I have had one of those Sharper Image Ionic Breeze Quadra air cleaners. They do great when it comes to removal of the smell/smoke. Don't get the Radio Shack version, though. They are too hard to clean.
Just an FYI.
People forget that- while they are out of their homes- it doesn't necessarily translate into being in a public space.
Exactly..........
The true shame is so many on FR think otherwise.
I have been looking at those things, but wondered if they really work. It's good to know that they do. I usually don't smoke in the house (I cheat when they're asleep sometimes, lol), but I have never found an air filter for our ventilation system that works worth a darn. (They're an odd size). I'm constantly dusting, and it drives me crazy...would it work for that kind of thing?
To be honest, I really don't either, in principle. But since Mr. Ex is a restaurant manager, I hear all kinds of horror stories about the kinds of things he has to deal with, smooth over, and put up with...all in the name of "the customer is always right." I guess that that colored my perceptions somewhat when making that statement, so I make full disclosure, now. :)
You have to keep the filter clean (Twice a week), and it helps to have a ceiling fan to circulate the air in the room. About once a month I scrub it down with mild dishsoap and a toothbrush. It collects dust, tar, pollution and all sorts of stuff. Don't get it from Sharper Image, though. I got mine on Ebay for $150.00.
It was actually a FReeper that turned me on to it. He was in those California fires and his home was smoke free. After the fires in Colorado, I was sold.
We still get the occasional dust, but it's nothing like it was before.
Sounds good to me...I've got ceiling fans all over the place, so it should work great! LOL
Thanks for the tip. :)
Smoking is as much a part of free speech as is burning the flag. The Supreme Court, by the way, ruled that burning the flag was constitutional.
You make a very good point about civility and the anti-smoker movement.
There is nothing CIVIL about the behavior of the anti-smokers. The opposite can not be said about the majority of smokers.
I will go out of my way to accomodate non-smokers, as do the VAST majority of smokers.
But anti-smokers are a different breed of non-smokers. They are not willing to accept the concept that all smokers aren't drug-addict-trailer-trash. They refuse to acknowlege the truth of my previous statement and demand that everyone cater to them.
That reminds me. I should find some good seafood recipes and get busy this weekend. Gonna make Crockpot Fajitas tomorrow.
That is, unless the "Citizens Against Cardiotoxic Foods," gets wind of my scheme.
I hadn't been in Florida in the year before the restaurant ban went into effect, but before that found there were more non-smoking restaurants than those that permitted it. And patronized many of them, because the food was more important to me. I have no problem with private businesses not permitting it.........I have a major problem with the government doing it.
And what happened in Florida is even more horrible than what happened in Delaware, though perpetrated by the same people and the same money. The voters of Florida were lied to through a massive advertising campaign, that was paid for with both tax dollars (primarily tobacco taxes) and pharmaceutical money.
I'm glad you are happy with the ban, but hope with your claim you think it should be up to the owner, you would be in support of a repeal.
doh! You've gone and made me hungry for this again! Looks like Mr. HR will be getting a home-cooked meal this weekend!
LOL! My Mom and Wife thank you for this recipe..
Thanks. It is an "LOL" type story.....but will not be believed by the nannyists........sigh
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.