Posted on 05/25/2005 9:29:10 PM PDT by Crackingham
A judge tossed out a lawsuit brought by a 115-year-old private club that sought to strike down no-smoking laws so it could continue to honor its members - who include Walter Cronkite and Carol Burnett - with ceremonies that include lighting up.
The Players Club is no more entitled to special privileges with city and state health inspectors enforcing the laws than are pro-tobacco organizations that tried unsuccessfully to overturn them, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said Wednesday.
"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to smoke tobacco," the judge wrote.
Smokers have been trying to avoid the heavy taxes by buying from Native Americans but now they are no longer allowed to accept credit cards and they are tracking the shipment,via the shipper, in certain states,even if you use a check.
They even put a sales tax on the excise tax in Massachusetts----in other words,they are taxing the tax.
Astonishing,isn't it?
And they have beaten every violation of the smoking ban they were charged with because of it. Why do you think that did it ????????
That's kind of what I figured. It sure as heck wasn't because there was some high demand from people wanting to smoke cigarettes made out of lettuce and tea.
While I understand what you are saying regarding the specific wording of this jusdge's ruling - I still believe the ruling itself is fundamentally flawed as it does not address the main issue here, that of private property.
I've tried several of them, and some are actually better than some mainstream tobacco cigarettes.
Good post but what you forgot to say is that the constitution was written to detail the exact rights that the GOVERNMENT has. Thus it was written to limit government powers. IF the right is not in the Constitution then the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not have it. All rights not written are reserved for the STATES or for the PEOPLE.The constitution was written by men who had a deep distrust of government and considered government a necessary evil. The BILL of RIGHTS only list the absolute rights that Citizens have and that under no circumstance can these rights be taken away.
yes it does but the LAW should come first no matter which aisle you sit in
Well said.
I don't know what his ruling addressed. All we have is a short article to go by. I don't know that counsel for the Players Club made any property rights arguments for the judge to rule on.
You are looking at this issue from the wrong end. This is a property rights issue, not an issue of a whacko Marxist judge upholding some edict from a pack of state legislators because it's "the law."
The original Bill of Rights is heaped full of property rights granted to individuals. In your list of "fundamental rights" you did not include the right of property ownership and the right to use that property without interference of the state. That is clearly a "fundamental right."
In this instance, we are speaking of the physical thing called land, owned by an individual.
Property comes with a bundle of rights. They include the right of use, to subdivide, to bar others entry and the right to develop. The property itself doesn't have "rights." The individual has rights in that property he owns.
So when someone reads the 5th and considers the word "seizure" he thinks of a physical grabbing of the thing called property.
But when property is looked at correctly as a bundle of rights, seizure takes on a new meaning.
For example, when government comes along and says you can't smoke on your property, government has seized one of your rights in the bundle - the right of use.
In this case, the idiot judge incorrectly allowed the seizure and theft of an individual's right in property. The judge is not upholding "the law." Rather, he is violating constitutional law, the highest law in the land. That makes what he did wrong. He is an accomplice in theft of property. He should be impeached, charged with theft and thrown in prison.
What you say is true, the article is rather bereft of details. I am aware, however, of several lawsuits agains thte smoking ban that are all based upon some aspect of private property rights, but I don't remember if this is one of them.
But the fact that this is a private club to me says all that is needed to be said........this has nothing to do with people smoking, but the right of a private property owner to allow them to do so if they so choose.
WOW!!!!!!!!
You explanation is priceless. Thank you.
It's bad enough these laws have been upheld on private property that is consiered a public place (bar, restaurant) but this is a Private club.........I don't think any of them should be upheld, but ones such as thid should never have been passed to begin with. do not the city councils and legislators have lawyers on their staffs?
Actually, as much as I hate the law, the ruling by this judge is correct, and you've even hit on the reason.
The problem is that it's state or local law, not a federal law. The question is not, "where does the federal government get the authority to tell me that I can't smoke." It's precisely because that authority isn't in the Constitution that the federal judge is unable to overturn a local or state law. I think that the judge also used this excuse because had he overturned that law, it would have weakend or overturned any sort of substance abuse laws that are on the books. So, I don't agree that his reason is correct, but the ruling is correct, constitutionally, because the states seem to have the rights to ban smoking in public places, including private clubs.
Mark
If you get caught smoking, I suppose that you could claim that you were just having a butt!
Mark
The states SEEM to have the right? On what grounds do you base that? I could see it stretched (though dubiously) for places of public accomodation, but I don't see private clubs.
I knew it without even looking it up.
Then it should have been appealed as a property rights issue, not that "smoking is a constitutional right."
Remember, the judge has to rule on the appeal filed. A judge can not tell someone before him, "Hey, you're doing this wrong! You should do it this way!"
Mark
I used the word "seems" because they (state and local governments) have passed laws banning smoking in public places, but also private businesses, and those laws have not been overturned.
Mark
Can't agree with you.
This is a private property issue, not a smoking ban matter.
A federal judge would be well within bounds to nix the state law under an individual's right to lawfully use his property.
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.