Again, I'm pointing out there is no constitutional right to smoke, whether on public or private property. This falls into the incredibly wide realm of things thst are properly decided through the democratic process. In jurisdictions with smoking bans, the people have spoken. In a lot of other places, the people have decided not to ban smoking.
your neurosis takes precedence over what's left of the U. S. Constitution.
Please point out where in the US Constitution there is any mention of smoking. This is an issue properly left to the states.
No, in the majority of cases it's been decided by unelected Boards of Health, under the guise of "employee protection."
You would be correct in the few places that a referendum vote has been held, but the vast majority of these bans have been promulgated by town or city councils and health boards, in all cases using bad or phoney science.
They would be much more honest if they had the huevoes to come and say, "We're banning smoking because we don't like it, it's smelly."
I maintain my premise that these banners have never been in a workingman's bar in their lives and would be petrified to do so.
Amendment IX says it quite well: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It is clear that smoking was *not prohibited* before the Constitution was ratified. Therefore it should be protected, at least until a Constitutional amendment, such as for prohibition, is passed.
This is so stunningly ignorant I'm speechless. That doesn't happen very often...
Ok. While I look up the reserve clause, consider this.
Nowhere in the Constitution do I see a protection specifically in favor of blondes.
So we the majority, can vote to expel them all under the public benefit of raising the average IQ.
Using your logic, if the majority so decides, it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do?