No Smoking in CA City

[mr.trooper]

Ever read the Bill of Rights, Trooper? Here. Let me help you out:
Quote:
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

TC

I completely agree with you. Its wrong to take away the rights of the minority, just because the majority doesn't like it. The only problem with that defence is that smoking isn't a right.

I take it that most of you are smokers. Thats not surprising: just about every smoker i have ever met thinks he has a constitutional right to smoke. If that were the case, then i would not have any problem with people smoking.

It has also been the case that every smoker I have confronted about this has gotten their nickers all up in a twist. Like most of you, they are CONVINCED the bill or rights gives them the right to smoke, and If you tell them otherwise, then you are a controll freak Nazi. (must be the nicotine talking)

To all the detractors, let me ask you this: Is it unconstitutional to have a legal minimum age for smoking? If smoking is the right you all claim it to be, then it naturaly follows that all american citizens have the right to do it. Why then do we restrict its use? That MUST be unconstitutional. Why arent you worked up about that?

Also, let me ask you this: Is drinking in public unconstitutional? After all, the constitution gives us the right to drink, and we have the right to be outside, so therefore, laws baring drinking in public must be unconstitutional, yes?

Go ahead and deride me some more! Afterall, Im just a dumb-ass hippy trying to ruin all that is good in America, right?

 

[mbs357]

HKUSP45C, the world needs more smokers like you. =D

I have the pleasure of knowing a few of them. My uncle doesn't smoke in my house anymore, even though no one's asked him not to. I usually join him on the porch so we can continue talking about whatever we're talking about.

My aunt, on the other hand, insists on smoking in the house, right next to my room and right next to her mother...this is after said uncle (they are siblings) has asked her to at least take it to the kitchen and away from us...but nooo...

 

[HKUSP45C]

I completely agree with you. Its wrong to take away the rights of the minority, just because the majority doesn't like it. The only problem with that defence (learn to spell) is that smoking isn't a right.

Neither is drinking Coca-cola ... your arguments lack merit, because they are, on face, fallacious. You cannot give a right, they are inherent.

You strike me as an authoritarian trying hard to find value in your own discriminating morals.

That's not a shot at you, I honestly think you believe the manure you're spouting. You're off, however.

Most smokers are slobs, agreed; most gun owners are negligent in the 4 rules .... would you be one of the ones effected by laws attempting to protect the minority from the majority.

In fact most people who carry on a daily basis are criminals. This is anecdotetal I have nothing more than experience to back it up.

People who can't fend for themselves by saying "hey man, put it out, it's buggin' the hell outta me" don't deserve laws backing them up. people who disregard the warning deserve the paw in the maw they get.

I'm really not calling you names, just making an observation.


EDIT: to add:

To all the detractors, let me ask you this: Is it unconstitutional to have a legal minimum age for smoking? If smoking is the right you all claim it to be, then it naturaly follows that all american citizens have the right to do it. Why then do we restrict its use? That MUST be unconstitutional. Why arent you worked up about that?

The many boot prints on the BoR and the COUSA are no good reason to tolerate more. Were I benevolent dictator I'd let parents handle thier kids. Up to and including telling them when they were allowed to buy a deck of nails.

 

[railroader]

My big problem with this law is someone could be smoking nowhere near anyone say across the street. Now with this law I can basicly go out of my way cross the street and tell the guy smoking he has to put it out or I will turn him in. That is total BS and I'm not a smoker. Smokers are being treated like lepers. If they want to smoke that is their business as long as they are not blowing it in my face. As for any pollution from smoking, it is nothing compared to cars, buses, trucks, lawnmowers etc. here in southern california. Mark

 

[gc70]

To all the detractors, let me ask you this: Is it unconstitutional to have a legal minimum age for smoking? If smoking is the right you all claim it to be, then it naturaly follows that all american citizens have the right to do it. Why then do we restrict its use? That MUST be unconstitutional. Why arent you worked up about that?

If I remember correctly, the right to keep and bear arms is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. There are also laws that specify a minimum age for keeping and bearing arms. Nearly every right enumerated in the Constitution is subject to some level or degree of restriction.

Also, let me ask you this: Is drinking in public unconstitutional? After all, the constitution gives us the right to drink, and we have the right to be outside, so therefore, laws baring drinking in public must be unconstitutional, yes?

Could you please cite the part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights that specifically enumerates a right to drink? (Hint: it's in the same section with the right to smoke).

By your logic, the only rights that we have are those that are specifically spelled out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. That's the popular approach in European countries, but it's not the way our government works.

 

[gc70]

I am a smoker, mr.trooper, and I know you.

You are the whiner who complained about smoking in the plaza in front of my building - and smoking there was banned.

You are the whiner who complained about smoking around the fountain at the side of my building - and smoking there was banned.

You are the whiner who complained about smoking in the corner of the garage on the side of my building - and smoking there was banned.

So the smokers congregated at the back of the building by the dumpsters and the ramp to the loading dock. But you wanted to use the smoking zone as a shortcut to go somewhere, so you are the whiner who complained about smoking too close to the back of the building - and smoking there was banned.

You are also the whiner who complained about ashtrays near the doors to the building - and they were removed. So, when I finish a cigarette, I no longer have a place to properly dispose of the butt - so I'll toss it on the ground... although I would rather stick it in some non-smoking, control-freak's ear.

 

[ravinraven]

As I sasid before....

....it's all a part of GASP. Getting your fing petty gripe signed into law. The arseholes who cheer this crap are doing more damage to this country than Mohammad Atta and his skyful of murdering lunatics. They are gone! These arseholes remain doing damage. Hitler and Stalin, et.al. smile at you. You vile pathetic pieces of dog vomit. I feel sorry for you. And I ain't a smoker. I am a rights fanatic.

rr

 

[Autolycus]

Well GC70,

you are littering. You could put that butt out on the bottom of your shoe and stick it in your pocket. Then you could throw it in a wastebasket. This is probably the real reason your employer banned smoking in those areas you described. Usually the reason is that it looks unproffesional to have cigarette buttes all over the floor. If it was in an unobtrusive place then people probably were not complaining but got sick of the mess you made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leatherneck:

Could the same argument be used about drug laws then? Marijuana? Cocaine? How about Meth?

It is my right to snort coke and I should be able to do it anywhere. How is smoking a cigarette any different then a joint? Why can the government override my right to shoot heroin into my veins?

 

[Farnham]

Once we've eliminated firearms, smoking, booze, SUV's, fast cars, motorcycles, swimming pools, mining, steel making, powered flight, the Big Mac, Coca Cola, and the full contact lap dance, I reckon we'll all be safe.

Screw you.

S/F

Farnham

 

[Cuda]

The left, the party of tolerance, right!!!

C

 

[ryan in maine]

From Biker:

So Ryan, explain the "mental defect" part of your post to me, if you would.
Biker

Well, I believe anyone who willingly subjects themselves to something with zero benefits and numerous health risks has something wrong with them. I mean, the first time you ever smoked a cigarette, what'd you do? You coughed. That was your body saying "That's not what lungs are for" and you had to ignore it for a time until you became numb to it and could take a drag of your cigarette without aggravating your respiratory system.

I'm not insulting you. I'm just saying obviously smokers don't think that thru very well.

To a lesser extent, I hate to see my friends who are struggling to make ends meet, yet are unfortunately addicted to smoking. Say they smoke a pack a day @ $5 a pack, that's $1825 a year going towards something that in the end will only make you sick. Around the time you retire, don't be surprised if you can't take a satisfying breath.

You're free to live how you want tho. Again, I'm not insulting you. It's just my opinion. I also think ppl who free-climb have something wrong with them.

You might think 21 year old kids on THR who think smokers have a mental defect have something wrong with them.

From c yeager:

As a taxpayer I have a problem with asthmatics. You guys have significantly higher lifetime medical expenses than non-asthmatics, and I am tired of paying for you guys. I think you should be required to live in an airtight enclosure and fed purified oxygen to minimize the economic impact on the majority.

And how about those SUVs? Most of them are single occupant vehicles. Why should a person be *allowed* to put out such a disproportionate amount of pollution?

If you dont draw a line somewhere then the majority *will* excercise its will in increasingly assinine ways upon the minority. This is why we do not live in a pure democracy.

I would also like to state that I *really* want my peanuts back on airplanes.

Oh yeah, in reference to the illustriuous history of smoking threads on THR; IBTL.

What made you type that to me?

 

[gc70]

Well GC70, you are littering. You could put that butt out on the bottom of your shoe and stick it in your pocket. Then you could throw it in a wastebasket.

Actually, tecumseh, I fieldstrip my cigaretts and put the butts in a small Altoids tin until I can find a trash can. But "put a butt in an Altoid tin or stuff it in a whiner's ear" just didn't have the right sound to it, so excuse my artistic license in this case.

OTOH when non-smokers demand the removal of places to properly dispose of butts, they should not be surprised or indignant when butts are tossed down inappropriately.

 

[Justang]

The next step is outlawing cigarettes all together.

Anybody remember "Demolition Man" where in the future if it was bad for you, it was deemed illegal? Looks like Cali is headed in that direction.

Pansy ass liberals! They'll sacrifice everybody elses freedom.

 

[c_yeager]

What made you type that to me?

You seem to lack the ability to understand your own hypocricy. You expect to be able to tell people how they should behave, and yet you bear no regard to the impact you have on the lives of other people. The fact is that everyone's actions impact everyone else. The point here is that your very existence has an impact on my life, and that impact is not necessesarily positive. Now obviously you take some exception to me pointing that out, now you know how smokers feel when you preach at them.

 

[Deavis]

To all the detractors, let me ask you this: Is it unconstitutional to have a legal minimum age for smoking? If smoking is the right you all claim it to be, then it naturaly follows that all american citizens have the right to do it. Why then do we restrict its use? That MUST be unconstitutional. Why arent you worked up about that?

Since you haven't bothered to answer my questions to you, which of course you can't do without discrediting your argument, I'll show you that smoking is a right.

1) It is well established law that a right can be subject to reasonable restrictions
2) The banning of smoking in public places due to health concerns, albeit bogus, could be construed as reasonable in some parts of the U.S. and has been. Smoking has been restricted in certain areas but not outright forbidden
3) The ninth states that rights not enumerated belong to the people, which is all natural rights, specifically your right to pursue happiness in whatever vice you may enjoy
4) Therefore, since smoking has had reasonable restrictions placed upon in and the I covered by the 9th, it must be a right.

Care to cut your teeth on that one or just ignore it and prove that you have no legal argument against smoking, no credible scientific case against smoking, no moral argument to stand on, and only an argument based on a personal dislike of smoking.

I'm not a smoker. I despise being around smoke. I hate smelling like it and I hate breathing it. Guess what, I accept that people have a right to enjoy themself in a bar smoking just like I have the right to enjoy a fifth of Maker's even though an alcoholic might not like it. My life, my body, my choice. Funny, that argument always works for abortion activists but not smoking or drinking.

 

[Jammer Six]

Works for me.

As long as we can regulate it to the point where it's illegal, I'm perfectly happy.

 

[torpid]

As long as we can regulate it to the point where it's illegal, I'm perfectly happy.

That is an excellent impersonation of the "anti-" mindset!
(Most convincing, you almost had me fooled there...)

.

 

[Dave P]

zero benefits

"willingly subjects themselves to something with zero benefits"

In an article in The Times of London (9/7/93), Dr. James Le Fanu provided an examination of the research on smoking and its apparent protective effect for certain diseases. Dr. Le Fanu stated unequivocally: "Smokers have a 50 per cent reduced risk of developing Alzheimer's--and the more smoked the greater the protection."

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

... evidence is slowly building that nicotine also has unmistakable positive effects in illnesses as diverse as:

* Schizophrenia
* Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
* Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases
* Ulcerative colitis
* Tourette syndrome

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Chronic smoking produces ‘antidepressant-like’ effects on the human brain researchers say. The investigators found that the brains of long-term smokers had neurochemical abnormalities similar to the brains of animals treated with antidepressant drugs, according to the report published in the Archives of General Psychiatry (Sept. 2001), but one of the lead authors warned, “There are so many bad things about smoking you can't justify the use of it.”
{“Cigarettes may function like antidepressant drugs,” Reuters Health, HealthCentral.com - Sep. 2001}

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Philip Morris commissioned a study from Arthur Little that shows how the financial benefits of smoking outweigh the risks — by the “indirect positive effects” of early deaths. This year 4 million people worldwide will die from tobacco, mostly in developed countries.

 

[Fletchette]

Mr. Trooper,

For some reason this thread seems to be getting more heated than others, so I will point out a few areas where I agree with you.

I agree that smoking is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (as is RKBA). I am glad that you acknowledge that the Ninth Amendment exists, and that the Ninth states if a right is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it should not be concluded that such right does not exist. Therefore, our disagreement is soley over whether smoking is a 'right' or a 'privilage'.

In general, I believe one has the right to do as they please so long as they do not infringe on other's rights. What constitutes "infringing on others' rights" is very much up for debate. I believe the Tenth Amendment clearly states that if a specific right or power is not mentioned in the Constitution, then it is reserved for the states or to the people. That means that the debate should take place in the states, not the Federal government.

So, the state does indeed have the power to decide for itself if an action is acceptable in public. This applies to smoking, drinking, drug use, nudity, etc.

So I agree with you - while I think it is overly restrictive, the state can Constitutionally ban smoking in public.

What I have a problem with is the state banning smoking on private property. A private group does have the right to decide whom they associate with, even if such decisions are racist, sexist or homophobic. That is why the Boy Scouts, private golf clubs and the like can discriminate - Freedom of Association also means the right to NOT associate. Discrimination in public, however, is not allowed.

By the same token, if I can have a men only country club, whose members agree to abide by my rules, then I should be able to have a smoker's country club. Or bar. Or restaraunt.

The problem I have is not that the govenment is restricting actions in public, but on private properrty. Unfortunately, that means many local governments have stepped over the Constitutional line.

 

[Cellar Dweller]

I can look, and LOOK, and ask others if THEY see it...I can't find a right to smoke-free air, a right to asthma-trigger-free air, a right to a peanut-free society, or a right to a nuisance-free existence in the Constitution.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:" says nothing about quality or length of life, liberty is infringed upon by the government and by individuals, and one can attempt to find happiness...which some pursue by persecuting those they find disagreeable.

ryan in maine Well, I believe anyone who willingly subjects themselves to something with zero benefits and numerous health risks has something wrong with them...I also think ppl who free-climb have something wrong with them. You might think 21 year old kids on THR who think smokers have a mental defect have something wrong with them.

Not the best choice of words...I don't consider parachutists, skateboarders, or hip-hoppers to be "mentally defective" even though there is "zero benefits and numerous health risks" to be found. With that definition, you can claim that gun owners are "mentally defective" if they just shoot targets and store their firearms locked/unloaded/unusable in an emergency.

 

[mbs357]

There are outdoor ash trays all over the campus at my school...I was waiting by a door that had one near it for my ride today.
The ground had more butts on it than the tray had in it.
What is wrong with some people?
The same question I ask to those who leave hundreds of shotgun hulls on the ground at the field where we shoot (we pick ours up, especially if there are large quantities), and brass too.
*sigh*

 

[Art Eatman]

My opinion, as a smoker: The crux of the matter is the control of people by government. Control by government, as opposed to letting people work out their own deal.

Sure, government can reasonably require separation of areas for restaurants. No problem. But I've been in the bar/restaurant business, and it's quite easy to protect non-smokers.

Since I was a kid, convention had it as an unwritten law that there were places you didn't smoke. Grocery stores, for instance. Department stores. Small shops commonly either had ashtrays or had no-smoking signs.

A storekeeper should have the say-so about who does what inside his business as to casual behavior--not the government. If would-be customers turn away for some personal reason, that's their right and the storekeeper's loss. But he should have that choice.

Art

 

[ryan in maine]

From c yeager:

You seem to lack the ability to understand your own hypocricy. You expect to be able to tell people how they should behave, and yet you bear no regard to the impact you have on the lives of other people. The fact is that everyone's actions impact everyone else. The point here is that your very existence has an impact on my life, and that impact is not necessesarily positive. Now obviously you take some exception to me pointing that out, now you know how smokers feel when you preach at them.

You're telling me this because I would ask a smoker to put a cigarette out because it could kill me???

You would rather sit there and smoke your cigarette freely than, god forbid, think about someone else and put it out and keep me from going to the ER and taking breathing treatments so I can breathe and live to see another day(in effect, saving you your precious tax money that you "pay")???

I don't think you understand... cigarette smoke, can kill me. If I breathe too much of it, I cannot breathe and I am on the verge of death. Do you want to know what an asthma attack feels like? Take a deep breath. Hold it for as long as you absolutely can. Then when you feel you have to take a breath... and without letting out the original breath... try taking another deep breath. Welcome to an asthma attack. Be considerate and put out your damn cigarette if I ask you to. In the end it will only save you your precious tax dollars. God forbid they go towards something as trivial and meaningless as saving a life.

Out of all the things to whine about paying taxes for... saving an asthmatics life. That's a new low for THR. I'm sure you'd rather have your neighborhood paved than look out for me, but I must ask you to reconsider.

How can you even say that and not feel some remorse, @ the very least?

I didn't buy my asthma. I didn't ask for it. I cannot help it.

You, however, can help where you expose your cigarette smoke and who you expose it to.

I'll work on turning my asthma off for the benefit of smokers tho. Or maybe that air-tight enclosure thing is something I should look @. God forbid I walk this planet freely and peacefully.

Smokers need a cigarette! And they must smoke it here and now or else they don't feel free! God forbid you take a step back for someone else's freedom!



I'm not trying to be a d*ckhead. But think about what you're saying to me. You're telling me my life is unimportant. You're going to have a very hard time convincing me of that.

 

[10volt]

I don't think you understand... cigarette smoke, can kill me. If I breathe too much of it, I cannot breathe and I am on the verge of death.

C'mon man be realistic if a bus or diesel truck goes by you do you yell at the driver and tell him your killing me, pollution and stress is what kills most people and our atmosphere is hardly affected by cigarette smoke. Your illness is also affected by the public also because if you do get an attack and nobody helps you, are you gonna march for a new bill that people have to help the sick. Sorry for your illness but you should be more aware of your surrounding's because the general public has no idea what you have. I can see how mad you would get but it's not the publics fault for being ignorant to your health.

Smokers need a cigarette! And they must smoke it here and now or else they don't feel free! God forbid you take a step back for someone else's freedom!

What the hell is that supposed to mean what about perfumes and all the other junk people wear as deoderants, I find that crap more offensive than cigarette smoke. I also pay for guys like you too with health issues so just don't blame smokers, tobacco has been here longer than you and I and it's a natural living plant as mother nature intended. Perfumes and all the other crap is a man made offense I think they should outlaw those things in public....

 

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me an asthma-person's rights supercede a smoker's rights, all things considered. They do for me, anyhow.

That said, either get back to the subject of government and control of people and let's end the personal-squabble differences without me having to close the thread. I don't like to do that when I'm involved in the thread--but it's gotta stay somewhere within hollering distance of the subject.

Art