Am I the only non-smoker who thinks "smoking bans" are a bunch of BS?

[Karak567]

How are some of them even constitutional?

I work in a PA State Rep's office so there's a lot of talk recently about the smoking ban. I ran some stats on responses we've received on our website today and found that 68 % of the people who responded to our internet survey (which was a very small sample size) favor the ban.

However, an alarming number of people not only favor the ban but favor the ban in PRIVATE clubs.

What bothers me the most about this ban is that it tells business owners who own or lease their own property as well as their own business what they can and cannot do in their own place of business.

If you don't wanna inhale cig smoke then don't go to a smoking restaurant.

I am by no means a law expert, but I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on the constitutionality of this law?

I've never smoked a cigarette in my life and this bill still really gets to me. I am an avid cigar smoker but cigar smoking is banned by most businesses anyways.

I spoke to iron81 before I made this post and he said he does not recall a smoking ban being discussed recently.

Here is a link to an article about the proposed ban: http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_6149016?source=most_viewed

[iron81]

I'm kind of torn about smoking bans. On one hand, I feel bad for smokers: I live in a cold climate and seeing smokers huddled outside is kind of pathetic. I also understand freedom of association arguments and arguments that the market can decide on a good mix of smoking and non-smoking establishments. On the other hand, if any other airborne pollutant besides cigarette smoke were present, OSHA would require workers to wear a respirator or breathing aparatus. I think those kind of protections are good for workers and patrons.

[Nielsio]

I too think it's a bunch of nanny state, socialistic, dictatorial, equality-hell, first they came for the ..., etc, censored BS.


But my question is: on what grounds are you objecting?

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
I too think it's a bunch of nanny state, socialistic, dictatorial, equality-hell, first they came for the ..., etc, censored BS.


But my question is: on what grounds are you objecting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Making a legal product illegal on private property.

If there is such a large majority of people wanting the ban...the market can fill that "need" by private business owners opening all non smoking restaurants, clubs, etc.

[Taso]

lol, I guess you make a good point - no need to make it a government thing. If the demand was great enough, business would just open up non-smoking, driving the other ones out of business, or making them change to non-smoking. Accomplishes the same thing, but with no government involvment. Hmm, good point, I am reconsidering my posistion on this, or re-thinking it at least.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
lol, I guess you make a good point - no need to make it a government thing. If the demand was great enough, business would just open up non-smoking, driving the other ones out of business, or making them change to non-smoking. Accomplishes the same thing, but with no government involvment. Hmm, good point, I am reconsidering my posistion on this, or re-thinking it at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

common sense rules the day. Hooray.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not discriminatory, it's not a taking of property, it doesn't infringe on any protected individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does!!! WTF are you smoking??

Discriminates against business owners and smokers who choose to live a certain way that you dont like.

Takes money (property) from bar owners by favoring soccer moms who go out once a week over a guy who sits and drinks 10 beers while smoking.

Pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness are all individual rights last time I checked.

There is no way in hell you can justify telling someone what they cant use a legal product on private property where the owner doesn't object.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not discriminatory, it's not a taking of property, it doesn't infringe on any protected individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does!!! WTF are you smoking?? Discriminates against business owners and smokers who choose to live a certain way that you dont like. Takes money (property) from bar owners by favoring soccer moms who go out once a week over a guy who sits and drinks 10 beers while smoking. Pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness are all individual rights last time I checked.

there is no way in hell you can justify telling someone what they cant use a legal product on private property where the owner doesn't object.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually disagree with smoking bans, I'm just pointing out that any constitutional argument against them is completely meritless. As for discrimination, I suppose it does discriminate against the people it applies to, but not on any constitutionally suspect basis, so that doesn't help your cause. It may cost business owners money, but again, it's not a taking for constitutional purposes. And finally, the constitution only protects life, liberty, and property from being taken without due process, which is not happening here.

Though I don't agree with them, smoking bans are really not qualitatively different from building codes or fire-marshal ordered occupancy limits.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I too think it's a bunch of nanny state, socialistic, dictatorial, equality-hell, first they came for the ..., etc, censored BS.


But my question is: on what grounds are you objecting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Making a legal product illegal on private property.



[/ QUOTE ]

But if it's really private property, then how can they have any say on it? Is it like an advice?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm kind of torn about smoking bans. On one hand, I feel bad for smokers: I live in a cold climate and seeing smokers huddled outside is kind of pathetic. I also understand freedom of association arguments and arguments that the market can decide on a good mix of smoking and non-smoking establishments. On the other hand, if any other airborne pollutant besides cigarette smoke were present, OSHA would require workers to wear a respirator or breathing aparatus. I think those kind of protections are good for workers and patrons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iron, I agree with you... if what you said was true.

Too bad the claims that 2nd hand smoke are anything beyond barely harmful are complete junk science. Unforunately, its just an annoyance and not a health hazard (unless put in extreme situations). And the risk it poses is similar to other risks that are normal in work (driving for salespeople, working with machinery, etc...).