Posted on 01/13/2005 11:53:07 AM PST by bob3443
Constitutional Arguments Against Smoking Bans
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Smoking is a freedom of speech i.e. personal liberty. Such bans are tantamount to precluding peaceable assemblage in that those who may choose to smoke would have to separate themselves from the assembly.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Converting private property for public use refers to using property for the benefit of the population at large. To wit: condemning land for the use of building a municipal government center. The property owner will receive fair compensation.
If Government regulates the use of private property in such a way as will harm the profitability of a business located on said private property, or the fair market value of the property itself, and by such regulation declare or imply that said property is in fact public, it stands to reason that the government in the position of owing just compensation to the owner of said property.
Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
In order to be compensated for business losses directly attributed to a smoking ban, business owners will have the right to demand a jury trial if such losses are in excess of $20.00
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
Were a smoking ban to be enacted and said ban was violated by either the owner of a business or a customer of the business, such fines could be no more than a minimum fine imposed on any other minor infraction of the law. Further, any action taken by the enforcing body of the government can not be so excessive as to destroy the business itself. Such action might be, but not limited to. Criminal prosecution, excessive fines, graduated fines, cancellation of food, liquor or other types of licenses or any other action that could be construed to be use of power to intimidate the private property owner or client or guest of said owner.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The Constitution is indeed of the people, by the people and for the people. The passage of any type of ban is a “bad faith”: activity local and state government that violates the spirit and the intent of the Constitution. Such bans further pits the general desires of a specific group of people against the rights of the private property owner and the clients of said property owner.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The rights’ of the people are always preeminent to the rights of the government.
Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. A ban of any kind by its very definition is an abridgement of the privileges of the citizens. Bans create an inequality as they would relate to the protection of the laws.
Amendment XVIII Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress. (The fact that this amendment was repealed I feel speaks to the fact that the government overstepped its bounds by ratifying an amendment that was unto itself patently unconstitutional. It further demonstrates how even as great as our Constitution is, it can still be held hostage when those who govern us lose sight of the true purpose of this document.)
Amendment XXI Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
YOU WON'T GET CANCER FROM ANYONE'S BUTT, OR THEIR CIGARETTE EITHER!
If this lunacy is the best the smokers anywhere anytime can come up with get ready to quit. It is amusing to watch desperate flailing about though.
Let us stay inside our businesses, and you won't have that problem.
Oh, and I do hope you don't walk down any streets that permit internal combustion engines...............
we smoke AND we vote!
Can I get a bumper sticker that says that? LOL
No smoking bans on private property are as ridiculous as the state dictating what color you can paint your living room.
If you can't stick up for your own side, who WILL you stand up for??!!
If the smoker is on your property you are 100% correct. If it is not your property, then you have no right to dictate to that person that they smoke elsewhere.
And 2nd hand smoke does NOT cause cancer. Multiple studies have shown this, including the ultra left, anti smoking World Health Organization studies have concluded such.
Actually I have one. I will see if I have it on my hard drive. If not, I can scan it and post it in here for you to save.
I own the business and I invite you in, why should I not be able to enjoy the company of folks that choose to smoke if I so desire.
Additionally, these smoking bans FORCE the owner of the PRIVATE property to have to exit his PRIVATE property if he happens to be a tobacco smoker.
if you don't like being around smokers, find an establishment that doesn't permit it, or talk to the owner of the ones that do.........keep the government out of it. It may be something you enjoy next.
In several provinces in Canada (most notably in the maritimes) the Provincial governments have passed laws banning heavy perfumes and colognes from the workplace.
Try a face mask filter. Really. Then you can protect yourself from all those nasty pollutants, and we can protect ourselves by identifying and avoiding you on sight.
Everyone wins!!
I was being a smart aleck...I didn't know you actually HAD one! How cool is that?
Thanks! :)
And we want to become more like Canada? WTF? Since when?
fat chance.
the convenient conservatives (gee where else have we seen them) get just as nasty as the HTTer's.
What would this be? I wonder if all employers are going to take on this issue too. Whose rights' trump the rights of others? I just don't understand all of this. We were a population that I thought was geared to the average but it is moving to the few and exceptional. The average simply folds and follows the lead. Maybe this is a reformed smoker getting even.
WHAT A WAY TO KEEP YOUR WORK SITE EXCLUSIVE..peeeuuu!
STATE OF MICHIGAN--Family Independence Agency Memo
To: Grand Tower
Date: January 13, 2005
From: Office of Communications
Subject: Fragrance Free Zone
The fifth floor of the Grand Tower Building has been declared a “fragrance free” zone and has been posted as such on the first floor elevator area. This means employees and non-employee visitors to the fifth floor must refrain from using perfume, cologne, soap, shampoo and lotion that gives an odor.
There are staff members on that floor with significant health impairments from allergies related to strong odors from these products. Prior exposure to these elements has resulted in employees suffering respiratory distress and an inability to perform in the work environment. For these persons, this is an issue as serious as second hand smoke, which is banned from state buildings.
Please refrain from using this type of product before coming
into work and while at work if you plan to:
· Use fifth floor conference rooms.
· Meet with staff on the fifth floor.
· Deliver material to or otherwise visit the fifth floor.
We understand this prohibition may cause resentment as use of certain soap, shampoo, perfume, cologne and lotion is a matter of personal preference and self-identification. However, because of documented health concerns we ask for your cooperation and understanding on the Grand Tower fifth floor.
Many persons with allergies react negatively to airborne odors. Please be courteous and understanding if this becomes an issue elsewhere. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this important health issue.
Just pointing out what may happen here down the road. The US is usually a couple of decades behind Canada when it comes to socialist programs.
I read about some studies last year showing links between perfume odour and infertility.
Anti-smoking zealots don't care if it's ridiculous to us, though, and that's scary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.