Replies

"The key difference seems to be where you (and your fellow smokers) think the "BOUNDS" of government should be versus where the majority of the population thinks they should be. Given that none of your objections have involved any of the individual guarantees in the Bill or Rights, it would appear that your position is only an opinion versus the opinion of many more of your fellow citizens. In a democratic republic such as ours, you remain entitled to hold your opinion but not demand that others adhere to it."

I was not going to respond again, but you have touched on a few subjects that require one more response.

Californians, like voters in Florida and New York were poorly informed as to the details, ramifications and inconveniences that result from statewide smoking bans. Admittedly, the antis have been very clever in the wording they use when they take opinion polls or propose smoking bans, and have used social engineering to convince a majority of the "sheeple" living in this country that smoking is harmful to the bystander. Second hand smoke, passive smoke or ETS, whatever you choose to call it HAS NOT been proven by unbiased authorities to be harmful. Until it really is, the court is still out on the final answer.

I'm glad you understand we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, we are not a country ruled by the mob majority. "I pledge allegiance to the flag and the REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS....."

It is often said that majority rule is just like mob rule. You can pretty much see this in the mentality and propaganda of smoking bans. He who screams the loudest and whips up the biggest crowd will win and it has nothing to do with who is right. We used to burn witches you know.

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have NATURAL RIGHTS instead of civil rights. THE PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS FROM THE MAJORITY. One vote in a jury can stop ALL of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

Since you say we have omitted reference to the Bill of Rights (or our first ten Amendments), I will give my example of how smoking bans are violating this country's basic principles.

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 offence 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."
Smoking bans are depriving small business owners of their liberty and property without due process of law. Their property is being take for public use without just compensation. Also, the liberty and pursuit of happiness by smokers is being intruded upon by the "mob" majority, and we count for far more than ONE.

These are liberties that it is unconstitutional for our government to intrude upon.

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 offence 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 [emphasis mine] be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Smoking bans are depriving small business owners of their liberty and property without due process of law. Their property is being take for public use without just compensation. Also, the liberty and pursuit of happiness by smokers is being intruded upon by the "mob" majority, and we count for far more than ONE.

These are liberties that it is unconstitutional for our government to intrude upon.

You are incorrect. No smoking ban is depriving any small business owners anywhere of “their liberty and property without due process of law. “

The answer to your objection has already been discussed on this thread. However, for convenience, I have extracted and repeated portions of several previous posts below that address the point you raised:

The following exchange compares other restrictions on business owners concerning legal activities or substances to the restriction on tobacco:

From Post 202 posted on 03/07/2005 2:23:22 PM PST

And what do ANY of these things have to do with the right of a property owner to allow, or disallow, the use of a LEGAL commodity on their property?

Let's take these examples and see by comparison what points are similar to smoking bans in restaurants.

First, pornography is legal in most places for adults to purchase. However, there are legal restrictions on where and how it can be displayed by the business owner selling it. (A "legal substance," or item, if you will, that is restricted by law)

Second, prostitution is legal in Nevada (not so in most other places in the US). However, even in Nevada, it is legally restricted by more than just "health" regulations. (Another "legal substance," activity, if you will, restricted as to where and how it can be consumed)

Thirdly, public drunkenness is prohibited nearly everywhere in this country. However, "private" drunkenness is perfectly legal. Additionally, nearly all states have a prohibition against having an open container of alcohol in a moving motor vehicle. (Another "legal substance," if you will, restricted as to where it can be consumed)

Fourthly, gambling is legal in some states in certain locations but not others. (Another "legal substance," activity, if you will, restricted as to where it can be consumed)

In short, there are all kinds of restrictions on property owners that operate "public business" and "legal substances" or "activities" as to where and how they may occur. There is no legal reason for tobacco to be any different.

From Post 203 posted on 03/07/2005 2:29:18 PM PST

I would think that private property rights, whether the property is open, at the invitation of the owner, to the public, or not, is protected by the founding government documents

You are incorrect in your thoughts on this issue. The existence of a host of business regulations in every US jurisdiction proves the point. The minute "private" property is used in a "public" business, the property owner surrenders a large number of rights that would otherwise be his or hers.

Sorry, it is a fact of life all over the world and especially here in the US.

From Post 206 posted on 03/07/2005 2:55:43 PM PST

I don't care a whether tobacco is outlawed or not. I only care if I am forced to endure any ill effects, including its noxious order, against my will. If smokers wish to partake of this activity where it has no possible way of impacting any one but themselves, I really have no objections.

Private property owners are unreasonably being denied the RIGHT to allow...

Get over it. Private property owner surrender a huge number of rights when the use their property for "public" business. It is a fact of life. I haven't heard you complaining about any of the other rights these "private" property owners surrender for the purposes of business.