Smoking, same rights as free speech?

[oden]

Although I am not a cigarette smoker, I find it wrong to say that one can't smoke in a bar or restaurant. I would prefer that the establishment declare that they are smoking or nonsmoking and I will choose to frequent them or not. The same goes if I wanted to work for a smoking establishment or visit a provider that smoked or permitted smoking in their incall.

Where does government get the notion that they have the right to decide these things? I don't frequent places that have heavy smoke because I don't want to smell like smoke when I return to work or home and smell that way ,but why should that not mean that people that do like to smoke should have nowhere to go?. If you don't want to be exposed to smoke, quit going around it and if places are losing money because of it, they will adapt or go out of business.

[atlcomedy]

:wavet owel2:

All kidding aside about the your being on top of new news....

I agree (as a non smoker) it should be a business decision that a proprietor makes, not one the government mandates.....

[TexTushHog]

There are enormous differences in free speech and smoking. First, the Constitution has a right to free speech. It doesn't have a right to smoke. Second, second hand smoke is dangerous and causes disease and some numbers of deaths. Free speech causes neither. Smoking also imposes costs on the State through Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS, etc. through smoking related illnesses. Free speech does not.

Certainly one method of regulation of smoking is to let the market regulate it. However, it is clear that method failed and that there were very few, if any, bars where citizens could go to enjoy a drink without endangering their health. (Not to mention those who work there and don't smoke.) So I think that the type of regulation we have now is a valid, and certainly a Constitutional, approach. And it obviously works better as you have more places that are smoke free -- which is clearly the preferred outcome from a public health standpoint.

[atlcomedy]

TTH I agree this is different than speech, but what part of the regulation baning smoking is constitutional?

[needer]

If you think the Gov't really cares about your health, you've been brain washed. Its about the MONEY!

[needer]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

There are enormous differences in free speech and smoking. First, the Constitution has a right to free speech. It doesn't have a right to smoke. Second, second hand smoke is dangerous and causes disease and some numbers of deaths. Free speech causes neither. Smoking also imposes costs on the State through Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS, etc. through smoking related illnesses. Free speech does not.

Certainly one method of regulation of smoking is to let the market regulate it. However, it is clear that method failed and that there were very few, if any, bars where citizens could go to enjoy a drink without endangering their health. (Not to mention those who work there and don't smoke.) So I think that the type of regulation we have now is a valid, and certainly a Constitutional, approach. And it obviously works better as you have more places that are smoke free -- which is clearly the preferred outcome from a public health standpoint.

Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to take my rights away? The law has worked in your favor to protect your rights, when are you going to defend my rights. My health is not your concern. Slowly they are narrowing us into times, places and circumstances that we can smoke. They haven't had the balls to make it a controlled substance, but they would like too. Do you want to see the day they hall your fellow Americans off to prison, because they want to puff on a cig. There's to many laws telling us what we can't do. This is the land of the free? It's not going to be free for ever. Our fore fathers didn't base this country on PUBLIC freedom it was based on Individual freedom!!

I think some of us need to remember what being an American is. We protect ours rights, but we respect the right of others.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by needer

I think some of us need to remember what being an American is. We protect ours rights, but we respect the right of others.

And how, exactly, does blowing cigarette smoke in my direction while i'm trying to eat dinner in a public restaurant show a respect for my rights?

It comes down to this. You're either going to take away someone's right to be an inconsiderate baboon and smoke wherever they please (if there even is such a thing), or you're going to take away someone's right to have a clean air environment that's not f'd up by someone's appalling lack of consideration and common sense (again, if there even is such a thing).

I think it's painfully obvious which of those rights is more deserving of being preserved.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by oden

Where does government get the notion that they have the right to decide these things?

Sometimes i can't help but think that the people who bitch the loudest about the things that government does would be the people bitching the loudest if the government wasn't around to do the things it does. Because they just like to bitch.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by oden

Where does government get the notion that they have the right to decide these things?

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

There are enormous differences in free speech and smoking. First, the Constitution has a right to free speech. It doesn't have a right to smoke. Second, second hand smoke is dangerous and causes disease and some numbers of deaths. Free speech causes neither. Smoking also imposes costs on the State through Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS, etc. through smoking related illnesses. Free speech does not.

Certainly one method of regulation of smoking is to let the market regulate it. However, it is clear that method failed and that there were very few, if any, bars where citizens could go to enjoy a drink without endangering their health. (Not to mention those who work there and don't smoke.) So I think that the type of regulation we have now is a valid, and certainly a Constitutional, approach. And it obviously works better as you have more places that are smoke free -- which is clearly the preferred outcome from a public health standpoint.

Originally Posted by needer

Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to take my rights away?

I agree generally with TTH.

Constitutional Basis: If I remember correctly, the right to regulate health and safety is derived from the police powers of the state, which is certainly constitutional. Also, there is no constitutional basis to a right to smoke in a public place (that is the only thing that is regulated).

Economic Basis: I think most businesses (read restaurants) have found (contrary to their expectations) that their income increased when smoking was banned. It's a simple fact: more people will trade there, especially when you add those adults that would normally stay away from a smoke-filled room, and families with children.

Also, with the position taken by the OP, I assume you would advocate that airlines have the right to re-institute smoking on planes. I would certainly be against that since it would affect my health.

Justice Cardozo once wrote about free speech: the fact that you have the right of free speech does not give you the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Likewise, you may have the right to smoke, but you don't have the right to adversely affect others by exercising your "right."

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by needer

My health is not your concern.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Smoking also imposes costs on the State through Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS, etc. through smoking related illnesses.

Well because of the programs TTH lists and that POS Bill the Dems crammed down our throat earlier this year, apparently it is.

The Nanny state is not about taking care of people, it is about controlling them so folks in their Volvo's have a pleasant place to live.

(You had to get me started...)

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by needer

My health is not your concern.

But my health is my concern, and when you do something that affects my health...you've crossed the line.

[discreetgent]

Interesting thread. You all can probably figure out on which side of this divide I am.

Oden, Atl, PJ: So to expand this thread

Are fasten seat belt laws ok?

How about drunk driving laws? If you want to truly take the logic to its limits why should government have the right to tell me that I cannot consume a certain level of alcohol and drive? Heck why shouldn't I be able to drink alcohol and drive at the same time? If I drive drunk and injure someone then I of course should assume the consequences (as one of Mr. O'Rourkes tag lines states); however, legislating up front that the mere fact that I have consumed alcohol makes it illegal to drive should be in the same category as smoking. Right?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

But my health is my concern, and when you do something that affects my health...you've crossed the line.

What does this have to do with the question oden (a non-smoker) posed:

Originally Posted by oden

Although I am not a cigarette smoker, I find it wrong to say that one can't smoke in a bar or restaurant. I would prefer that the establishment declare that they are smoking or nonsmoking and I will choose to frequent them or not. The same goes if I wanted to work for a smoking establishment or visit a provider that smoked or permitted smoking in their incall.

Where does government get the notion that they have the right to decide these things? I don't frequent places that have heavy smoke because I don't want to smell like smoke when I return to work or home and smell that way ,but why should that not mean that people that do like to smoke should have nowhere to go?. If you don't want to be exposed to smoke, quit going around it and if places are losing money because of it, they will adapt or go out of business.

Nobody is saying you have to frequent a smoking restaurant or work in one.

I like the color blue. I think we should pass a law that all the cars have to be painted blue.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I like the color blue. I think we should pass a law that all the cars have to be painted blue.

If that's the best you got, you got nuthin'.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Interesting thread. You all can probably figure out on which side of this divide I am.

Oden, Atl, PJ: So to expand this thread

Are fasten seat belt laws ok?

How about drunk driving laws? If you want to truly take the logic to its limits why should government have the right to tell me that I cannot consume a certain level of alcohol and drive? Heck why shouldn't I be able to drink alcohol and drive at the same time? If I drive drunk and injure someone then I of course should assume the consequences (as one of Mr. O'Rourkes tag lines states); however, legislating up front that the mere fact that I have consumed alcohol makes it illegal to drive should be in the same category as smoking. Right?

So, I take it you would encourage the following positions, if, of course, the person assumed the responsibility:

• Child dies in accident because parent didn't buckle him/her in. Or worse, is crippled or a vegetable for life and becomes a drain on society's resources.
• A drunk driver plows into a group of elementary school children with same results as mentioned above.
• Employers don't put safety standards into place. Workers suffer long-term life-affecting adverse health issues or death. Asbestos would be a good example.
• Businesses that provide public accommodations (say day care centers or public/private schools) can let dangerous conditions exist (such as exposed wiring or mixed cleaning chemicals).

I could go on, but you get the drift...at least I think you're intelligent enough to do so.