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?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Smoking bans aren't even close to being unconstitutional. States have the power to do basically anything not prohibited by the Constitution. I can't think of any good arguments about smoking bans violating any constitutional prohibitions. It's not discriminatory, it's not a taking of property, it doesn't infringe on any protected individual rights.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]
In California, If you own a bar, you can allow smoking, as long as it is only you and any other owner working the bar. The smoking ban in California is designed for the safety of employees. Also, smoking is allowed, even if you hire employees, as long as you have a hole in the ceiling, such as they do at the Hustler club.

[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...).

[jogger08152]

No. Smoking bans are a bunch of BS. So are cigarette taxes.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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...).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe in smoking bans at all of course, but Penn & Teller did a show where they said what you said about second-hand smoke not being a big deal. A couple of years later some new research came out and they admitted they were wrong.

[Taso]

I am completly in favor of smoking bans.

As far as being unconstitutional, how?

And where are you getting the "2nd hand smoke..junk science" stuff from? www.tobacco.com? <okay, if thats an anti-tobacco website, my bad, I was looking for a site that sells tobacco.

GO BLOOMBERG.(urg?)

[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.