Replies

I'll reiterate, private property should not be taken for public use, without just compensation. Now, how does a smoking ban constitute "public use" and where does it offer just compensation?

...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.

Exactly where do you get that private property is being taken for public use?

A person who chooses to use his or her "private" property for a "public" business is subject all sorts of legal restrictions, e.g., public safety requirements, public decency requirements, public access requirements, etc. In none of these cases is that person being deprived of his or her property. If he or she wishes not to comply with any of these legal requirements, then all that is necessary is for that individual to withdraw said property from a "public" business.

Exactly where do you get that private property is being taken for public use?

A person who chooses to use his or her "private" property for a "public" business is subject all sorts of legal restrictions, e.g., public safety requirements, public decency requirements, public access requirements, etc. In none of these cases is that person being deprived of his or her property. If he or she wishes not to comply with any of these legal requirements, then all that is necessary is for that individual to withdraw said property from a "public" business.

Let's see, a person buys a property/business, invests his time in making a successful venture. Let's say he starts a smoke free restaurant. He has discovered a market niche that is leading to a very successful business.

Now, the government comes along and passes legislation that forces all restuarants to be smoke free. The government now destroyed his niche, and the intended use of his property. Effectively, they have confiscated a portion of his property/money/profits, by passing bad legislation.

The bans do work both ways.