Should Public Smoking Be Legal?

[Osborn F Enready]

Cephus said:
I don't necessarily think that smoking in public should be banned, but it should be strongly regulated. If you want to pollute your own lungs, fine, just don't pollute the lungs of those around you. That means respecting others, something that most people seem to have a problem with.

I say:
You can regulate "publicly owned" land all you want Cephus, but the Constitution stands between you and private property regulation, like it or not.

For instance, I think it is ridiculous to attempt to try to regulate open air areas, like parks. However, it is technically publicly owned property, so I can agree that since smoking is a personal choice that is dangerous to your health, it may not be allowable if you can prove a legitimate danger from smoke concentration levels in the areas in question. Courtrooms, Federal Buildings, publicly owned land, can be regulated.

Places owned by a private individual, whether open to the public, or private homes cannot be regulated against in such a manner. The land is private property, and the owner has the choice of specifying whether it is a smoking or non-smoking establishment or dwelling.


I am all about reasonable compromise, but not if it infringes my rights, or the limitations emplaced on government in the Constitution.

Is this not fair, reasonable and diplomatic?

[Osborn F Enready]

Belverron said:
I'm with Osborn on this one. It was really tempting to disagree simply because of his fondness for the caps lock key, but I didn't give in.

I say:
Well, I apologize if you think the caps infer yelling, I am only highlighting topic words, or enunciation.
I intend no yelling to be inferred unless you see this: ---->>> ! <<<-----

I am guilty of being a little verbose, and a little heavy on the font mods, but I truly respect everyone here that partakes and respects honest debate.

No insults intended to anyone.

[Flip Jackson]

Abub, if anyone is blowing this out of proportion it seems to be you. I am stating my point of view, but you seem a bit flustered. I am not trying to say that you should only be able to smoke in your house. I am not proposing more taxes. But you seem to think the "non-smoking section" fixes problems. It often doesn't, smoke travels pretty far. But as I said before, if a restaurant wants to allow smoking I can't do much about that.

I don't want to limit anyone's freedom, unless it hurts me or others who don't smoke against our will. You say non-smokers aggressively try to limit where you can enjoy yourself. I could make the same claim of many smokers. Many give no consideration in a park or public event, as to where they smoke. They are "enjoying" themselves, and I must leave if I don't like it, because their right to enjoy themselves seems to override my right to go to a public place and not be harmed. Even in open areas, a shift in wind can give me a big breath of something that I didn't agree to. :)

I will fight that you can do anything you want. That is until you infringe on someone else's rights. Smoke with your buddies, in restaurants, in bars, or inside anywhere that wants to allow it. But is it really necessary to smoke everywhere? This seems like you have plenty of places to enjoy yourself, while allowing me the same privelege.

[Osborn F Enready]

Flip said:
They are "enjoying" themselves, and I must leave if I don't like it, because their right to enjoy themselves seems to override my right to go to a public place and not be harmed. Even in open areas, a shift in wind can give me a big breath of something that I didn't agree to.

I say:
It is not that their right over-rides your right, it is that in open air places, the concentration is so low, that the negligible damage to your health would be practically immeasurable. Let us face the fact that everytime you are in a car, on the road, you are breathing in harmful fumes. You breathe in harmful fumes at the gas station. Many people, such as I, who work or have worked in labor positions, are exposed to dangerous fumes, chemicals and pesticides everyday, 8 hours+ a day. Practically anyplace you go, you are being exposed to fumes and pollutants you don't even know about.

What about all the people who were within the fallout plumes of nuclear testing in this country? What about the higher cancer populations in these areas they blame on smoking, even though it is proven historical fact that we know nuclear fallout has health effects, involving cancer?

There is a lot to be said about current research on smoking, and I have no doubt the facts about smoking are true in some aspects, but some are as distorted as "facts" they push about marijuana through the "Drug Awareness Program" which are nothing but pure false propaganda, lies and scare tactics.

Anyway, I am getting off topic, I apologize.

Publicly owned land, has the option of being regulated.

Privately owned land does not, in the sense of personal choice restriction of a legal substance.

[Osborn F Enready]

Flip, you could also try to spur some growth, and incentive by talking to your local port authority about ways to spur growth for new "non-smoking" clubs, bars, restraunts, etc, instead of having them focus on ways to limit smokers.

If there was enough public outcry, or demand for a non-smoking only establishment, I am sure the local entrepeneurs and small businessmen would respond for the opprotunity to profit.

The sad fact is though, most small places are already taxed to death, and couldn't afford to lose that big a chunk of consumer base.

So who deserves the blame here? I would say the local, state and federal governments, for forcing to much taxation to be extracted through payroll, licensing, and regulation fees to the point it prohibits diversity in business growth, and consumer needs.

[MerlinsByte]

I have never smoked,ever. However, I feel the safty Nazis have went too far with the ridiculous smoking ban. It should be allowed. The hand wringers should get a job and do something constructive rather than limiting taxpayers rights. get the 15 year old drivers off the road and means test the older drivers if you want to save lives.

MB

[tman_ndsu08]

Public place, by definition, a place OWNED by the public.

Place "open to the public" is open with discretion of owners wishes, and rights to be observed.

Very simple.

100% agree.

Bars and restaurants are privately owned. They can choose to allow smoking or not.

[Jack]

I can only speak to California, but you may not have an establishment; bar, cafe, store or laundry, that permits smoking. It's a part of the business license. Just because it's private property does not allow you to do anything you please. You can't serve uncooked eggs, you can't serve beer without a liquor license and you cannot permit smoking.
I'm not saying I support this, but it's the law. If anyone smokes in a bar or restaurant and someone else notifies the authorities, both the smoker and the establishment can be fined. If it's a bar, repeated offenses can cost them their liquor license.

[Chris Weimer]

I wonder if we would see eye to eye on many things. I respect and admire the Constitution, but I see faults within it. I am also not at all in line with the Constitutionalist view on religion, and religious views often can create a rift of observance of reality and interpreted reality.

I'm not a Constitutionalist but a constitutionalist. I'm actually am a member of the Patriotic Constitutional Party, which is in favor of a separation of church and state, unlike those heretics in the Constitutional Party who basically advocate a theocracy with rights to own guns.

We all know this, and it is still a personal choice.

Like suicide, right?

Because a bar exists, or people enter a bar, they are not forced to drink, but they are forced to deal with the side effects.(drunks, drunk drivers, bar fights, public urination, etc.etc.etc.)

Actually, not at all! Public intoxication is illegal, believe it or not, and drunk drivers, barroom "fighters", and public urinators can all go to jail. You DON'T have to put up with that at all, and if any bar allowed fighting, drunks, and public pissers, they can and do get sued. So you're arguement is crap.

Because someone who is a non-smoker walks into a bar that allows smoking, they are not forced to smoke, but they are forced to deal with the side effects.(smoke in the air, smell of smoke on your clothes, possible health effects, etc etc etc) This is the price you pay, when you voluntarily enter the establishment. Anything less would be in violation of logical deduction of reasoning or blatant hypocrisy. Which do you prefer?

Not at all. If a drunk person hits you, it doesn't matter if he is on private property. Assault is assault and is still illegal, and smoking is assault.

Obviously, you haven't read the Declaration of Independence very well. Do you know the meaning of self-evident, and do you know what the words originally were before they were changed to self-evident? I am speaking of the phrase " ...and we take these rights to be self-evident." I am talking about our "un-alienable rights", the ones listed in the Constitution under the bill of rights.

Obviously you have no idea of what either you or I are talking about nor have actually read the Constitution or Declaration yourself. Nowhere does the Constitution allow for criminal acts on private property to go unpunished. Not only that, but you obviously need to take more civics classes, since the DoI holds no legal authority in the states period.

Our government was created to PROTECT, not LIMIT these rights. Do not be confused of who created government, and who they serve.

YES! You are correct. We need to protect non-smokers who are being assaulted by smokers. Perfect.

The rights are written clearly, and addition to the lawbooks, would be a clarification, modification, or limitation of said rights.

This is non-sequitur.

NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING under any circumstances, over-rides my rights.

You're right. Your right to live healthy shall not be overridden by vile smokers who assault your health. Wow, you're really getting the picture, aren't you.

Who said anything about guns? Guns are built to kill, period. They can be used for defense, and hunting, and sport. Cities, towns, create ordinances to attempt to regulate the use of firearms, but our right to posses firearms is clearly and implicitly protected, sufficiently enough to ensure my freedom after trial if I respect the use of the weapon as a last resort in protection of my rights or physical safety.

The bar has no auspice, in allowing or disallowing the use of firearms on their property, other than for personal use. They can allow it, but as you said, they can also be arrested if they knowingly opened a bar wishing to permit firearms use, knowing that laws existed in the city PREVIOUSLY not allowing the use of firearms in bars.

Guns have been being regulated against for hundreds of years in this nation, smoking maybe 50 years. Apples and oranges.

Not at all! Guns can be used to kill people, cigarrette smoke can be used to kill people. Thus the FUCKING PARALLEL!!!! OK, after you get done taking that civics class, go take a logic class, or maybe an English language class, anything that explains "analogies".

You cannot apply the same logic to guns and smoking, so please refrain from the strawman argument

Are you smoking crack (well, you're smoking something, cigarrettes maybe?). Guns can kill people; cigarrette smoke can kill people. Both need to make sure that neither can harm anybody.

This is a matter of opinion, and neglects important sides to the issue.

What sides? You have the people that want to protect the rights of others not to be assaulted by a deadly chemical, and you have the people who don't give a fuck about other people. I can see which side you're on.

That is not an analogy. That is personal opinion over-riding sensible debate, and bending the concept of analogizing to an extent it is not recognizable.

You've got to be kidding me. Unless you deny the ill effects of cigarrette smoke, the analogy is perfect.

It is wrong for anyone to FORCE anyone to be subjected to smoke......but last time I checked, working for someone was voluntary, getting service at a restraunt is voluntary, entering private property is voluntary, so you have no case for comparison. Try again please.

Even if an establishment allows people to be assaulted on their premises, it's quite clearly AGAINST THE LAW. Wake up and put out the stupid cigarrette. It's assault, pure and simple.

[PatrickHenry]

Patriotic Constitutional Party, which is in favor of a separation of church and state, unlike those heretics in the Constitutional Party who basically advocate a theocracy with rights to own guns.

Chris, I couldn't come up with anything when I Googled Patriotic Constitutional Party. Is there a website? The party you are referring to negatively is the Constitution Party. I support that group, though not all their positions.

The Constitutional Party is very secular, I believe. http://home.earthlink.net/~jmarkels/cp.html Very small by comparison with the Constitution Party, it seems. It may not even be a currently active political party. But I can't find anything on your Party at all.

[MerlinsByte]

Merlin writes...I live in east Tennessee, you know NASCAR country and the bible belt. The Bristol NASCAR track is about five miles away. Now ,it seats 140,000. its open for now (a German firm is being consulted to make it a convertible) anyway smoking is banned in the open air stadium part...if it can happen in east Tennessee the rest of the (smoking) country is doomed for sure!

mb

[oranged]

Once again.... this is the third thread on this topic....

The law in the Constitution, and my rights limit governments control over this.

In a public place, owned by the city, state, fed, outlawing smoking is legal, since it is PUBLICLY OWNED LAND.

On business, or private land, it is the BUSINESS OWNER, OR THE INDIVIDUAL who has the RIGHT to say whether or not you may smoke ON THEIR PROPERTY.

It is a matter of Constitutional Rights, and anything else is a lie or perversion.

Property rights are the BASIS of ALL OUR LAW in this nation. If the Federal, State, or City officials try to change property law in the guise of "helping or benefitting society" they are violating the Constitution on its face.

Do you think harder drugs should be legal? You know how I feel about property rights as a communist, but I think most public buildings should have a smoking section, and that harder drugs dhould be legal, it's the choice of the people to do drugs and damage themselves. Smoking in some places damages other people which is not fair, so it should be contained in a desagnated area.