Replies

"Are your REALLY this obtuse or are you just arguing for the sake of aruging? The US Constitution is NOT a list of "rights" of the individual (or of the states, for that matter). It is a SET limit on the powers of the GOVERNMENT! Try the 10th Amendment or, better yet, try reading Bastiat's The Law. "

Sorry, no cigar. Amendments to the constitution have been made proving that the Constitution by itself is subject to review and change by the means provided in the document itself. Smokers say that smoking is a constitutional right, therefore, it is not out-of-line to ask just where the constitution lists smoking as a right. A method of creating laws is legal by constitutional means. At the moment, even court decisions are used to create a body of laws. Like it or not, that is the situation.

by Otto Mueksch
After obtaining data on "Taxable Sales in California" (Sales and Use Tax), I analyzed the Periods of 1989 to 1993 (Pre-smoking ban year), and 1994 to 1999 (Post smoking ban). The media, with furnished information from the anti-smoking industry, wants to tell us that everything is fine, there is NO damage to the restaurant industry.

In fact they tell us that the restaurants are doing better than ever since the ban and there is no cause for alarm. When you look at those two periods, you also have to consider the overall economic tendencies - 1989 to 1993 was at the tail end of a recessionary period, with ZERO growth.

The "Eating and Drinking" group contains eating places where no alcoholic beverages are sold; eating places where beer and wine is served; and eating places where all types of liquor is served.. I call the first group FAST FOOD or FF, and combine the two remaining groups into RESTAURANTS AND BARS or RB.

The analysis I conducted shows the following:

Even though there was Zero growth, the FF sector showed an increase in sales of 11.7% Whereas the RB showed a modest gain of 1.2%. Another interesting feature of the report issued by the Board of Equalization is the number of permits issued in the various categories. The permits for the FF sector increased during this period by 15.7%, while the permits for the RB group declined by .9%, or 293 fewer RB.

Looking at the period from 1994 to 1999, the overall economy (taxable sales statewide) increased by an incredible 31.9%. Looking at the sales for FF and RB I found that they increased also, with FF sales outpacing the overall figure at 38.4%, while the RB sales were below the overall economy figures, at 28.6%. However, the clincher, and what the Media and the anti-smoking industry does NOT tell you, is that the number of permits isssued for FF rose by 12.7%, whereas the number of permits for RB DECREASED by 3.3%, which means that there were 1,039 fewer RB's in California.

In other words, during a period in which we saw a tremendeous increase in the overall economy, 1,039 restaurants or bars went out of business. That is the real impact of the smoking ban.

So if you hear of anyone saying that the smoking ban in restaurants and bars does not hurt anybody, you can quote my figures, which are based on the official reports issued by the State Board of Equalization here in California.

Smokers say that smoking is a constitutional right, therefore, it is not out-of-line to ask just where the constitution lists smoking as a right. A method of creating laws is legal by constitutional means. At the moment, even court decisions are used to create a body of laws. Like it or not, that is the situation.

Show me where on this thread that any smoker claimed that smoking was a Constitutional Right. All anybody that I've seen has been saying is that the GOVERNMENT has NO RIGHT to control or restrict LEGAL behavior on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Or is this concept to complex for some to understand?

Smokers say that smoking is a constitutional right, therefore, it is not out-of-line to ask just where the constitution lists smoking as a right.

I've yet to meet a smoker who has made any such comment.

As a smoker I do claim it is the choice of the PRIVATE property owner to determine his/her clientele.

I don't enter establishments that have raw shrimp in close proximity to the clientele. I can't handle it. I love shrimp and it is consumed on a regular basis in this household. But, I have to leave when my husband is cleaning it. I guess I'm entitled to push for a state law forbidding the presence of raw shrimp in any "public" place.

Good gravy

Smokers say that smoking is a constitutional right, therefore, it is not out-of-line to ask just where the constitution lists smoking as a right

Tsk. Don, you're not paying attention. Smokers don't say any such thing, or at least I've never seen it. What we DO say is that neither smoking OR not smoking is mentioned in the Constitution, so that means our "rights" are equal. The rights that ARE mentioned in the Constitution, those of private property and individual liberties are the ones we're concerned about.