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.
Again, this seems to me to be a complete non sequitir. How is smoking tobacco free speech?
Actually, I can remember, in my youth (I'm 52) when a smoker in the presence of a non-smoker would ask, "Do you mind if I light up?" I haven't heard that in years, though.
Sulfite Food Allergies
Many of the foods we buy contain sulfides, additives designed to preserve and prevent discoloration. Sulfides are typically added to dehydrated foods, some canned foods such as tuna, and some frozen foods. Anyone who suffers from unexplained allergic symptoms may be sulfite-sensitive. Sulfite allergies can create a wide variety of reactions in certain individuals. The most common symptoms of sulfite sensitivity include dizziness, hot flashes, runny nose, headaches, stomach cramps, and irritability. The symptoms of a sulfite reaction usually occur soon after consumption. If you experience any of these or other symptoms, check for sulfite content. If you suffer from severe allergic reactions or asthma, sulfites can pose a significant risk to your health and may cause you to go into labored breathing or even anaphylactic shock. Foods that commonly contain sulfites include canned sea food, dried fish, fresh shell fish, shrimp, scallops, oysters, and lobster. Sulfites can be listed on a product label as potassium bisulfite, sodium sulfite, sodium bisulfite, sulfur dioxide, or any ingredient that ends in sulfite. Make sure to get into the habit of checking ingredient labels. Ask your pharmacist about this home test kit. For more information write to: Sulfitest Center Laboratories, 35 Channel Drive, Port Washington, NY 11050, or call (800) 645-6335.
http://www.diagnose-me.com/cond/C488839.html
http://www.healingwell.com/library/allergies/papazian1.asp
You've never met me........I always ask the question. As does every other smoker I know.
Of course I also live in a polite society where even the most rabid anti-smoker would never dream of calling someone who smokes a nasty name.
Interesting information, but I have no clue what that has to do with my post about my reaction to raw shrimp. I get none of those symptoms, nor do I consume raw shrimp.
I thought you said you had an allergic reaction when eating shrimp ?
Not when eating it, I eat it all the time.....however I can not clean raw shrimp or even be in the same room with raw shrimp without my eyes starting to swell shut.
When you touch it, it eventually gets transferred to your mouth. For people who are sensitive to it, it only takes a very small amount. My wife is sensitive to it and can have a reaction from just touching a lime that was sprayed with it because it goes from her hand to her mouth.
Shrimp gets sprayed with sulfite's as soon as it comes out of the water. The fact that once its cooked or washed you are okay indicates its something on it.
One more problem is that a person doesn't always have the same reaction, possibly because of prior exposures from other sources or current health. For example, sometimes my wife can have one or two shrimp with no effects and other times a small amount can cause a severe reaction.
Most times the reactions are mild but they have been known to cause death when the airways swell so much you cannot breath. At one time my wife needed to carry an epipen but since has the problem under control.
If you are the author, The disingenous comment was directed to some of the constitutional arguments, not at the argument in general.
To give you an example,
Amendment I - This is not a freedom of speech issue. It's just barely possible that the right to peacefully assemble could be invoked but not a very good possibility.
Amendment V - Government is allowed to regulate privately owned businesses for things the customer is not allowed to see that could affect health, such as food storage, sometimes food preparation, cleanliness of preparation areas, etc.
While ETS is not in this category, the government has the power, under health issues, to regulate privately owned businesses at times.
Amendment IX - Bans are, "bad faith"? What does that have do do with anything?
The rest of the argument, specific group against property owner rights and clients wishes may have some bearing, but, "Bad Faith"?
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.
Governments have no rights, only powers. And I believe that, at certain times, the powers of the government CAN be used to restrict, temporarily, certain rights of the people.
Smoking bans are not one of these circumstances or times.
Most of these business have not suffered a loss in revenue.
I know that I still eat at restaurants that ban smokers..oops, I mean smoking. But If smokers chose to show restaurants and others through their pocketbooks, I believe there would be a significant loss of revenue.
Smokers though, are simply trying to follow the law and live as normally as they can, so they continue to give business to those who think they are somehow "less" than other patrons.
I'm glad your wife has her situation under control.
I don't even have to touch raw shrimp, just being in the same room is enough fo my eyes to start itching and then swelling, and the weird thing is that the fresher the shrimp, the faster the reaction. And I'm even talking about shrimp coming directly out of the water.
You may be onto something about the spraying of sulfites on the shrimp, but I have no idea..........I have absolutely no other food allergies, and never have. Now insect bites or stings is an entirely different story.....but also for another thread.
Hope you have a pleasant afternoon...I need to go run some errands.
If you have a problem with it my answer to you is, "Certainly, BUT TAKE YOUR BUISNESS TO AN ESTABLISHMENT THAT CATERS TO YOUR NANNYISM."
BTW, the danger from second hand smoke is dubious.
Nonsense. Junk science.
Sulfites can give off a gas called sulfur dioxide, which the asthmatic inhales while eating the sulfited food. This irritates the lungs and can send an asthmatic into severe bronchospasm, a constriction of the lungs. Such reactions led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban sulfites as spray-on preservatives in fresh fruits and vegetables. But they are still used in some foods and are made naturally during the fermentation of wine, for example.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:KM4E7G70jLEJ:www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/food.htm+%2Bsulfites+%2Bshrimp+%2Bspray&hl=en
I used to work in the rest. business too (as a servr). I can imagine Mr Ex's horror stories quite well.
" They are not willing to accept the concept that all smokers aren't drug-addict-trailer-trash"
Exactly. I had to get off the puter last night, so I'm late here :). My mil (who is my dearest friend) doesn't like smoking or smoke. But she isn't ignorant about it at all. I've stayed at her home (and of course smoke outside). She considers me a considerate smoker....and never bashes me for doing it.
That looks yummy! Just copied the recipe to make ASAP.
Your recipe sounds fabulous....I can't wait to try it.
If you want the study names and the names of the main researchers, let me know.
Most of the businesses in Florida can have a year round outdoor patio that can accomodate smokers.
Go to somewhere that can't accomodate smokers outdoors year round.
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.