Help needed to fight smoking bans

[Da Bilge Troll]

My local city government (St. Peters, MO) is making noises about banning smoking from bars. Does anyone have or know of anyone or group who has sucessfully stopped such a law and might be able to provide help and advice?

[Just another Joe]

Troll, if you need any supporting documentation I think the SheLion, Gabz, or myself might be able to help you.

I'm on the outskirts of KC so might be able to make a trip to talk to the City Council if they ever have a meeting on it.

[Gabz]

FORCES

They tried to do it in Virginia this year and were deafeated nearly 2 to 1.

[Da Bilge Troll]

Thanks all, for the replies and help!

I don't even smoke cigarettes. My stand on this issue is completely a property rights and liberty position. I get very discouraged when I hear conservatives speak in favor of these draconian laws.

[Mears]

bump

[mojojockey]

Geoff Metcalf at Geoffmetcalf.com recently convered this topic on his show.

[VermiciousKnid]

Here's the problem, NYCinic...it wasn't the liberals that pushed the NY State ban down our throats, it was the RINOs, from Pataki to Bruno to the RINO legislators in Albany. MANY more Dems voted against it, and ALL of the RINO Senators voted for it.

Of course, they can't seem to pass a BUDGET here in NY, but dang it, it only took 'em 48 hours to pass this piece of garbage.

Regards,

[lotusblos]

"I don't even smoke cigarettes. My stand on this issue is completely a property rights and liberty position. I get very discouraged when I hear conservatives speak in favor of these draconian laws."

You have to remember that most of the public do not smoke and they don't want to die a horrible death because they were forced to inhale the smoke of others. When you close down the bar, it's no longer a public place, and you can smoke in it.

[cgbg]

The one thing you can do today is write a letter to each of them putting them on notice that you are opposed to such a ban, that you will vote against them if they support it, and you will do everything you can to mobilize others to do the same.

Now if you can find ten more people to do that with you then you really have their attention.

There have been some great threads here (search terms: smoking, ban, cigarette, cigarettes, etc.) that have a lot of ideas.

My state (CT) is already a lost cause--and I boycott all bars as a result.

As a cigar smoker I feel my liberties have been violated by self-righteous politicians spouting pseudo-science about second hand smoke.

I will support none of them, regardless of party.

It seems like every group in the country has "reasonable accomodation" for their slightest whims except for white guys who want to smoke.

In our state, btw, there are many bars and restaurants in the rural areas that openly violate the law because they know the local cops need a place to smoke with their friends. :-)

[Da Bilge Troll]

...they don't want to die a horrible death because they were forced to inhale the smoke of others.

OK, let me get this straight. You go to a bar and you realize they allow smoking, but somebody FORCES you to go in anyway to inhale the smoke. Is that right? Do they use a gun to keep you there? Why don't you call the cops?

Hell, why don't you open your own dman bar and set whatever rules you want???

[lotusblos]

"OK, let me get this straight. You go to a bar and you realize they allow smoking, but somebody FORCES you to go in anyway to inhale the smoke."

Oh no, they aren't making these laws for me. I can't afford to blow my money on booze. I think they're trying to protect the bar employees and those people who are compelled to drink.

[Da Bilge Troll]

Oh no, they aren't making these laws for me. I can't afford to blow my money on booze. I think they're trying to protect the bar employees and those people who are compelled to drink.

So, you are pushing to take away the rights of bar owners even though you don't go to bars and wouldn't even if smoking was banned? Wow. Seig heil!

Bar employees also know about smoking in bars before they take the job. "[T]hose people who are compelled to drink" could also drink at home and it would be cheaper to boot.

Nanny-Staters make me shake my head. ALL POWER TO THE GUVMENT! Yeeeeahhhhhhhhh!

[lotusblos]

"So, you are pushing to take away the rights of bar owners even though you don't go to bars and wouldn't even if smoking was banned? Wow. Seig heil!"

Troll, go back and reread my post. I'm not pushing for anything, I just tried to give the reason your elected officials are making it illegal to smoke in public places. Like it or not, all businesses are regulated. You sound like a panicking addict, lighten up. You can still smoke and drink in the privacy of your home (for now anyway), if you don't have kids. They're getting real close to declaring smoking in front of your kids child abuse.

[Da Bilge Troll]

Look, I didn't start this thread to debate this issue. I asked for help in stopping these laws, not reasons why I should let government run my life. I suggest you start a debate thread and I'll be happy to jump in.

[jschald]

it was the republican mayor that did it in NYC. everyone was pissed but there is nothing you can do about this crap. and bars lost at least 20% business.

[tahiti]

U.S. Supreme Court HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991),

ruled that 42 U.S.C. 1983, which states

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured. . . ." is constitutional because,

"We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are "persons" within the meaning of (42 U.S.C.) 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under (42 U.S.C.) 1983 solely by virtue of the "official" nature of their acts."

I will be addressing the St. Louis County Council on April 12th during the 2-4pm session concerning the anti-smoking ban proposal introduced by Republican Councilman Kurt Odenwald.

I will be opening my remarks with the above citation and then presenting the constitutional case that protects the right of a private property owner to allow anyone to consume a legal product on their property.

Then I will ask every council member if they wish to risk their personal finances, the equity in their homes, their savings, their children's college fund, their retirement funds, and garnishment of their future wages to pay for the "damages" they have caused passing an unconstitutional ordinance.

Just the "damages" this ordinance will cause to Harrah's Casino alone will bankrupt all of the council members.

The constitutional case emanates from both the Missouri Constitution, Article I, Section 2, 4, and 26 and the federal Constitution, Amendment V, IX, and XIV.

This is going to be so much fun.

[Da Bilge Troll]

This is going to be so much fun.

Bwaaahahahaha! I wish I could be there!

[Da Bilge Troll]

PING!

[ConPunk]

In my State, North Dakota, the Republicans are all for smoking bans. In my local district I am the only member of the District Committee against that type of government involvement. I am a non-smoke and the College Republican Chairman, the next youngest at the district table is 50, I am 22.

[Da Bilge Troll]

Liberty, it seems, is out of style, even with those who should support it.

[lpnykahuna]

When NY's statewide ban was enacted, the Nassau bar owners won a victory on a technicality. Similarly, the Suffolk County NY bar owners won on the grounds that they complied with the law by posting signs prohibiting smoking and removing ashtrays. Nothing requires them to eject smokers.

In many places NY's law is ignored at least amongst friends.

For ammunition to demonstrate your views, check out www.cafepress.com/extinguishbans