Smoking Bans

[Gregorio]

Smokers can't own the air we breathe, they are polluting the air. It's not a personal property issue, it's a public health issue. etc... You also never have the right to endanger someones health, right? So why is smoking in public or in privately owned facilities that are used by the public (and thus regulated by the government) allowed?

I think that's the question that's sparking the debate. People simply shouldn't be allowed to do that, hence why a public vote is a good idea. Hell the government banning smoking without a vote is a good idea too, yet I'd rather have a public vote just because it makes things prettier.

Smoking is not a public health issue unless it's done in public, which is exactly why I think the smoking ban is backwards. Ban it in public, fine, but not on private property. And for the last time, it doesn't matter if the place serves the public or not, it's still private property. You don't have a right to be in there. You choose to go in or not go in, you make the choice to breath the smoke or not to.

And smokers aren't polluting the air on anywhere near the level that cars, factories, or even cows are...so if you want to argue environmental issues here you've picked an extremely small source of pollution to start at.

Lots of people (maybe even a majority of them) believe you shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. While you may not think it's hurting anyone, there are many who think you are ending a life, and as we all know killing is illegal. As you said "People simply shouldn't be allowed to do that, hence why a public vote is a good idea". It doesn't matter that it's a complex issue dealing with the removal of a significant amount of personal freedoms, if the majority of people decide it then too bad! Again as you said, hell the government banning abortion without a vote is a good idea too, yet I'd rather have a public vote just because it makes things prettier. Do you see now that not everyone agrees with you, or even the majority?

I'm not saying you "can't have the right" to smoke, I'm saying you don't necessarily have it. That's why I said priviledge, to get away from the whole semantic issue you're talking about right now.

You can take the constitution and interpret it anyway you like, that doesn't really mean squat in the long run. Is your argument simply that "we shouldn't have a public vote because there is a slim possibility that the supreme court would not uphold the law"? If so, I find that argument utterly unconvincing and detrimental to society.

I'm sorry...but whats the difference between you saying "you can't have the right to smoke" and you saying "you don't necessarily have the right to smoke"? If that's not semantics I don't know what is. And what I was saying is not semantics, it's pretty basic. Either you have the right to do something or you don't. However, saying something is or isn't "fundamental" isn't semantics because the word (and basically every word in legislation) is important in law circles.

There's no interpretation of the Constitution necessary here...it's pretty basic on my part. The Constitution lists what the government can do and nothing else. The government has assumed powers through interpretation, not the other way around. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with my argument. It doesn't matter if they uphold the law or not...it's based on basic human rights. My argument is that neither the public or the government has the power to take away my right to smoke in a private establishment (even though I've never smoked).

How is it "detrimental" to society? Show me one other ballot issue other than gay marriage that was as "proactive" to all of society as this is? Ballot issues usually exist to let the local governments know what the population want done with their tax dollars. Issues like smoking and gay marriage that significantly restrict the rights of individuals have no business being regulated by the government AT ALL, let alone the uneducated masses.

[Gregorio]

Oh...and seeing as you didn't answer the question I asked in my last post (and dodged many of the questions in my past ones), I'll ask this one again.

Going back to the Bowers case...it was never overturned, the Supreme Court has said that you do not have the fundamental right to have gay sex. Now since the government said it, and the people voted on it via ballot issue, should gay people have the right to have gay sex? Is their personal sexual preference a right or...like you describe smoking...a "privledge"?

I know you can say that the "right" to have gay sex isn't hurting anyone else and smoking could possibly hurt other people, but since you have been championing the public vote and ballot issues I felt this one is pretty comparable. What you (and the majority of people) think is good for society may not be so great for the individual and our rights as a whole.

[Misharu]

http://health.netscape.com/story/2006/1 ... oking-ban/
no smoking in any residence other than single-dwelling homes

This bothers the hell outta me. Cant wait to see what freedom is taken away next.

After reading this whole thread in one sitting, I need a smoke haha.

[Imitarate]

While I am not exactly proud of this, I am a smoker. However, even in places where smoking in buildings is allowed, I hate it. Especially restaurants; you go there to eat, to smell good food, and the last thing you want is smoke-clogged air. The walls and ceilings soak it up, and it makes them dirty. Overall, a non-smoking restaurant (or other customer-serving fascility) looks a lot better without smoking.

I'm the type of smoker who really likes to have one after eating. So I get off my lazy ass and go outside. I don't sit down next to people and light up. I try not to smoke around people at all, and I'll go off to the side of the restaurant if need be. I never, ever, smoke around children.

Common sense and decency should make most of these laws moot. Sadly, that'll never happen. I will defend my right to kill myself slowly, but also your right to not get sickened from it.

[SephYuyX]

Some local guy, hes the owner of a pizza shop, just got warned by the gov to stop what hes doing.

What is he doing? Hes using a wood burning stove to cook the pizza. In the law it says its unlawful to burn/smoke any plant material, and ofcourse hes using wood. So lol, hes fighting it ofcourse, and I think it was a pretty dumb thing to begin with.

[Exoduso]

Ban it and do it ASAP.

[Kross]

holy necro bump

this was a thread from last year!

[Gadritan]

who fucking cares! the real issues here is the need to legalize deh herb! *cues Bob Marley music*