"I am using my beauty to send a strong anti-smoking message," says Silvia Ceccon, Italy's Miss Universe 2004, smiling generously at the assembled photographers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4161245.stm
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 disgusting. Only a man with no couth would come up with that.
Wonder if someone interviews for a job if they are excluded because of their smell? We all have a smell of some type.
I don't. I bathe daily. I do wear cologne, but not an overload. I never smell body odor on a person unless they don't bath. After- shave and cologne on a clean body can smell really good.
I've run across FReepers who want to stop people from smoking in their own homes. I was amazed that FReepers could think this.
That is the line that should not be crossed.
Anyone who tries to stop me from smoking in my own home better be ready for a fight because that's exactly what you're going to get if you try.
Get a load of this. Those smarmy, terminally PC Ad Council geeks are only too happy to throw more gasoline on the fire.
This is the most disgusting one yet.
With socialists in this country it's always about "the children". This is the easiest way to introduce socialism into this country with barely a fight.
I'd rather be seen as cold-hearted that as ignorant as one has to be to believe all these "studies".
How many "Action Plans" do you think are on the drawing board right now?
They're waiting until their propaganda campaigns have smokers just a bit more demonized, and their brain dead cheerleaders will be praising this new advance in "public health."
For the children.
Sticking up for ANY side should not entail absurd extrapolation from the Constitution. This argument is ludicrous whether it is pro or con smoking. We complain when Liberals read whatever they want into the Constitution yet "conservatives" do the same to uncritical applause.
Mommy, can I be a liberal when I grow up? I want to ignore the facts and still get my way everytime anyway!
*snort*
Well you don't get hired for the 5th floor. What is that smell?
Mommy, can I be a liberal when I grow up? I want to ignore the facts and still get my way everytime anyway!
ROFLMAO
"I am using my beauty to send a strong anti-smoking message," says Silvia Ceccon, Italy's Miss Universe 2004, smiling generously at the assembled photographers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4161245.stm
Their wedge will be "the children."
Don't confuse involuntary activity undertaken in an attempt to not be offensive to others with that which essentially says "screw you if you don't like smoke."
I am not an anti-smoking fanatic but to cast any doubt on the right of smokers to smoke anywhere and anytime they want is sufficient to provoke the Smoke-uber-alles crowd to name-calling.
Anymore? The fact that the government is taking away private property owners rights without actual justification.
If they're going to use the justification that ETS is a health hazard they should have to PROVE that it actually is a health hazard.
No one disputes that salmanella is a health hazard, no one disputes that cockroach droppings in your food is a health hazard, there are plenty of scientific studies that dispute ETS being a health hazard.
How about holding the antismokers, and the government (municiple, county, state, federal), to the same standards?
If it's only about the SMELL, the private property owner's rights should not be encroached upon.
Maine: Do not smoke if your a foster parent! The DHS says so! It's ok if you sprawl on the couch at night drunk though!
DHS creates smoking rules for foster homes, vehicles
2-26-04 - article here
Beauty? She thinks a lot of herself, doesn't she. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm glad she thinks so much of herself.
It reflects the inherent contradictions in their tax 'em till they quit schemes. They supposedly want everyone to quit, and when folks do, they lose money! Well, they can't have that, so they freak out and start shouting about the fact that so many "haven't gotten the message", so they can justify raising the tax further. It's a vicious circle, and one that shows them for the fools they are.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Too bad she doesn't have the brains to match her looks. Then she might actually say something that makes sense.
Exactly! Excellent post. Thank you!
After you read that, just to avoid any possible misunderstanding, know that 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.)
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.