Smoking ban upheld in my city!! Critique my letter....

[jimpeel]

It came down to the California Constitution and the right to free speech clause. It is far more liberal with those rights than the federal constitution and as such the CA Constitution trumps the federal Constitution.

I'm sure there are those who would believe that the state Constitutions should not trump the federal Constitution but then there's that part in thirty-two of them that declare firearms rights to be an individual right ...

From the decision:

[ Footnote 2 ] Article 1, 2, of the California Constitution provides:


"Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments [447 U.S. 74, 80] on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press."

Article 1, 3, of the California Constitution provides:

"[P]eople have the right to . . . petition government for redress of grievances."

[ Footnote 3 ] The center had banned handbilling because it "was considered likely to annoy customers, to create litter, potentially to create disorders, and generally to be incompatible with the purpose of the Center and the atmosphere sought to be preserved." 407 U.S., at 555 -556.

[ Footnote 6 ] The term "property" as used in the Taking Clause includes the entire "group of rights inhering in the citizen's [ownership]." United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373 (1945). It is not used in the "vulgar and untechnical sense of the physical thing with respect to which the citizen exercises rights recognized by law. [Instead, it] denote the group of rights inhering in the citizen's relation to the physical thing, as the right to possess, use and dispose of it. . . . The constitutional provision is addressed to every sort of interest the citizen may possess." Id., at 377-378.

 

[Bob Locke]

Some other excerpts (now that I've had a chance to at least skim the decision):

It bears repeated emphasis that we do not have under consideration the property or privacy rights of an individual homeowner or the proprietor of a modest retail establishment.

Seems they consider a shopping center or mall and a bar or bowling alley to be quite different animals.

Much of the rest of the decision seems to be contridictory, IMO. I'll get to the rest of it tonight or tomorrow.

 

[CommonSense]

Pendragon:

Bullets in my pocket harm nobody... Cigarettes in my pocket harm nobody.

You are correct that my cigarettes in my pocket at someone else’s business will not harm anyone.

You are correct that your bullets in your pocket at someone else’s business will not harm anyone.

Are you suggesting that they next pass a law dictating that bullets are only legal if carried in your pocket? Why would anyone own a gun if that was the case?

 

[CommonSense]

Mpayne:

Bar employees that breathe secondhand smoke for eight hours a day ARE being poisoned.

Please post reports of people being kidnapped and forced to bartend. Thank you.

 

[CommonSense]

Pendragon:

Smokers brought this on themselves.

That has to be one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard. Non-smokers are forcing their wishes on business owners. Are you reading along here?

 

[CommonSense]

bountyhunter: I’m sorry if you have health problems you feel are related to your father. I suggest you sue your father. You didn’t have a choice but to be there.

That’s not what this thread is about though. It’s about forcing your will on a person that has built a business, feeds a family, pays employees and is just trying to fulfill his/her vision (aka – the American Dream).

If you feel a business doesn’t want your business, go elsewhere!

 

[CommonSense]

bountyhunter:

But smokers conveniently forget that they are (and always have been) the minority.

The people that want to carry concealed are an extreme minority in Wisconsin. At best they’re guessing 3 percent. Even in a vote for it with the general population is 35/65 at best (I know numbers suck, so don’t hold me to them.) Smokers are over 20 percent. Tell me again what you’re saying because it almost sounds like you were saying that a majority ruling is tops regardless of right or wrong.

 

[Pendragon]

CommonSense,

CommonSense:


Pendragon:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bullets in my pocket harm nobody... Cigarettes in my pocket harm nobody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are correct that my cigarettes in my pocket at someone else’s business will not harm anyone.

You are correct that your bullets in your pocket at someone else’s business will not harm anyone.

Are you suggesting that they next pass a law dictating that bullets are only legal if carried in your pocket? Why would anyone own a gun if that was the case?

First, if you are going to quote me, at least do it accurately:

Bullets in my pocket harm nobody (even if installed in a gun also in my pocket).
Cigarettes in my pocket harm nobody.

When the whole thing is quoted, it makes me wonder if you even read what anyone writes - or of you just look for quotes to take out of context for the purpose of clouding the issue.

My quote on bullets in the pocket was a direct response to something else you said:

CommonSense:

Pendragon: Bullets have been proven to kill people. Should those be banned as well? Okay, you have the right to bear arms – just no ammo.

(note that that is not a quote of me, it was addressed to me)


Somehow you seem to think that when I make a comparison or analogy, that I am simultaneously proposing legislation or policy.

non sequitur

non sequitur

n 1: a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it 2: (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises

My point was that comparing bullets to smoking was a false analogy. Bullets are more properly compared to cigarettes - and this is not about a ban on carrying cigarettes into restaurants or public places.

bullets are to cigarettes as firing a weapon is to smoking.

I am saying there is currently a ban on firing a weapon in "public" except under extreme circumstances - either at a proper range or in defense of life.

There are all kinds of other restrictions on the use of your private property - the State and local charter have the authority to impose these restrictions as the law is interpreted today.

 

[Ky Larry]

At least you got to vote on the issue, Mopar Mike. My city,Lexington,Ky; tried to institute a smoking ban by city council decree. The voters weren't allowed to decide. Of course they claim they are acting in our best intrests. Smoke if you want or don't smoke but please don't try to protect me from myself.

 

[Bob Locke]

At least you got to vote on the issue, Mopar Mike. My city,Lexington,Ky; tried to institute a smoking ban by city council decree. The voters weren't allowed to decide.

To be honest, that's the way it's supposed to be. America is still a republic, not a democracy. We elect our leaders to make the laws for us. But that's a whole other discussion.

 

[MicroBalrog]

tell that to Asthmatics....

My deceased sister was an asthmatic. She smoked. She did not die of asthma.

 

[Jeeper]

Hi Jeeper: You bring up an interesting question. At what point should the government interfere with business. Let’s keep the conversation on thread though.

1. Do you think smoking is unhealthy?
2. Do you think working in an environment with smoking people will harm your health?
3. Have you ever seen a warning regarding the risks of being around tobacco smoke?
4. Have you or anyone you know suffered harm from tobacco smoke?

If you answered YES to any of those questions, you should not visit places where the owner allows smoking if it worries you.

That said, no. I would not work in a place with asbestos or coal dust. Why? Because I answered the same questions I just asked you above and decided that wasn’t for me. I don’t care to put myself in what I believe to be harms way. Hypocrite? If you insist.

The choice to work in a place like that is not really a luxury for some people. It is a necessity. I am not saying one way or the other about the smoking issue( although Jimpeel knows how I feel about it ). I am just trying to argue the point about private property regulations imposed by the government. My basic point is that a very very small percentage of the population has a problem with child labor laws and the basic health and safety regulations from things like OSHA. If you conceed that those are OK then it is just where you choose to draw the arbitrary line versus where the rest of us do. I have never understood the mentality that "private property is mine and I can do with it whatever I damn well please" This has NEVER existed in our country from the beginning. That mentality is basically anarchistic.

Mopar,

Why did you try and discuss the interstate commerce? Just curious. It isnt the fed regulating this.

 

[Art Eatman]

(I'm not really sure why I haven't closed this thread...)

Anyhow, I've been in the bar/nightclub business. It's not at all difficult to control the airflow such that non-smokers aren't bothered by cigarette smoke.

So I have no problem with a legal requirement tnat provision be made for non-smokers; it's easy to do. I have no problem with a ban in stores with no provision for separation--retail shops, e.g., although there should be some latitude for the owners' wishes.

Still, to have a blanket ban, city- or state-wide, with no allowance for a business owner's wishes strikes me as just plain wrong.

The petty hypocrisies surrounding this issue amaze and amuse: In Austin, Texas, cigarette smoke is apparently not harmful between the hours of 10PM and 6AM, when smoking is allowed in restaurants In the entertainment district on 6th St. in Austin, outside doors of restaurants are often wide open to the sidewalk. I'd like someody to explain to me how in comparison the automobile exhaust from a heavily travelled street is not harmful, but secondhand smoke is.

Art

 

[Moparmike]

At least you got to vote on the issue, Mopar Mike.

Well, yes I did. But that was only after the Council passed the law, and we got enough signatures for it to go to a referendum. But I agree that it should be the original republic style, not done like California. However, it should also be possible to get a seat on the council when you arent a screaming Liberal or a Green (otherwise forget it), and a tree-hugger. (18mos crafting a tree law. :banghead: )

It turns out that half the Council and the Mayor himself were signees or trustees (something) on the original funding from the Tobacco Settlement Money.

Art, thanks for keeping it open. If it gets too bad (which wont take long) please do what you think is necessary.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

Well the only medical basis I can think of as proof of the dangers of second hand smoke is that all the smokers in my family are all dead -- and those that didn't smoke -- died from smoking related illnesses from having to breath it in....

I can't say I feel sorry for you with this smoking ban. I've been sick too many times when I've gone out because people wouldn't put out their cigarettes -- and chain smoked one after the other after the other.....

 

[jimpeel]

Mastrogiacomo

Well the only medical basis I can think of as proof of the dangers of second hand smoke is that all the smokers in my family are all dead -- and those that didn't smoke -- died from smoking related illnesses from having to breath it in....

So THIS ARTICLE and THIS ARTICLE are of no consequence when placed against your contentions to the contrary?

This TEN YEAR study from the premiere health organization for the entire planet, The World Health Organization, is wrong? This study disappointed the entire anti-smoking and scientific communities when it stated that second hand smoke may have a preventative effect against cancer.

But what do they know?

 

[Ky Larry]

Mr. Locke, the state of Kentucky allows local option voting on many issues.Among them are alcohol sales and paramutal wagering. We just had an election in November. Why not put the issue on the ballot and let the citizens of Fayette County decide? We have a city councilman named Mike Scanlon who makes Homer Simpson look like a genius. He owns several Applebee's restaurants in the area and says he's in favor of ban. However, he allows smoking in his restaurants. Go figure.
The real problem in Lexington is our LEO's are underpaid and overworked. They're leaving for other jobs and we're worrying about someone in a bar lighting up a Marlboro?

 

[thefitzvh]

whether or not it's bad for you makes no difference.

Your right to smoke ends where I have to hold my breath to avoid the stench.

However, I also feel that an outright BAN is wrong. Force restaurants to have a non-smoking section: MAYBE, just maybe. But a ban? Wrong. Dead wrong.

But let's not argue whether it's bad for you or not. It's not BAD for you if I spit my tobacco juice on your shoe, but it's certainly not RIGHT.

James

 

[BlkHawk73]

A Maine law forbiding smoking in almost all public places - even bars - took effect in January. Made going out to eat a much more enjoyable time. All I heard was the smokers complaining about ti saying "if you don't like the smoke don't go there". Well, why should they be allowed to do something that is proven to harm others without any responsibility placed on themselves. 'Course they're the same one that in a few years will complain that their insurance won't cover all thier lung cancer elated medical bills.

 

[MicroBalrog]

proven to harm others

Proven?

 

[BlkHawk73]

Proven?

You mean to say that the Surgeon General or other studies hasn't shown that second hand smoke is a health issue for non-smokers? yeah Right :banghead:

 

[jimpeel]

BlkHawk73

You mean to say that the Surgeon General or other studies hasn't shown that second hand smoke is a health issue for non-smokers?

So THIS ARTICLE and THIS ARTICLE on a ten year study by the World Health Organization; which states that second hand smoke is not a danger; does not cause cancer; may have a preventative effect; that there's no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood is, what, a lie? A fabrication? Erroneous? Wishful thinking?

I am only going to continue to post this study for as long as others posting here continue to ignore it.

 

[BlkHawk73]

Yup those sure appeard "official" notifications.
So all that smoke emitted from the end of that cigarette that is not filtered is perfectly 100% safe for anyone to breathe? This being true, wouldn't the filtered smoke inhaled by the smoker be even safer? Hmmm...then I guess there should be no age limit for smoking then either. Kids...light up!:banghead: Pregnant women should have no concern about smoking during thier pregnancy.
Sorry but you're not likely going to convinceme otherwise. You wanna slowly kill yourself - all the power to ya just don't effect my -or any other non-smoker's envoronment while doing so.

 

[MicroBalrog]

This being true, wouldn't the filtered smoke inhaled by the smoker be even safer?

Not really, see, smokers inhale smoke in much greater concentrations than passive smokers.

 

[jimpeel]

BlkHawk73

Hmmm...then I guess there should be no age limit for smoking then either. Kids...light up! Pregnant women should have no concern about smoking during thier pregnancy. Sorry but you're not likely going to convinceme otherwise.

YOW! The shallow end is over there. You just jumped off the deep end.

The articles were about the study. They were NOT the study. Know the difference.

The fact remains that the study is out there and the WHO tried to cover it up because it went against the belief system of the anti-smoking establishment -- including yourself.

It was one of the largest and most comprehensive studies ever conducted and it stood the former belief on its ear. Of course there are those whose mind is made up in spite of the facts and they will state, as you stated, "not likely going to convince me otherwise".

Now there are those who want to ban "Nicowater" (See HERE, second and third posts) even though there is no health risk to anyone, even the person consuming it.

It is proven fact that nicotine of and by itself is not a carcinogen. It is the other components of cigarette smoke which are carcinogens. So why the effort to ban that which bothers noone and causes no health risk?

Let's see if you get the answer to that last question.