Replies

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.