Judge Upholds NY Smoking Bans

AP ^ | 5/25/05 | Larry Neumeister

[LibFreeOrDie]

"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to smoke tobacco," the judge wrote.

Dammit! If I have a constitutional right to kill my unborn child, then I sure as h*ll have a constitutional right to smoke tobacco!!

[AlaskaErik]

"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to smoke tobacco," the judge wrote.

Whatever happened to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?!

[Not now, Not ever!]

Wonder how the Native Americans feel about that "right" they don't have?

[Eastbound]

""Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to smoke tobacco," the judge wrote."

If that is a true quote, the judge has no consitutional right to be a judge, lacking common sense, logic, and a gravely inadequate understanding of the powers conferred by smokers to the federal and state governments.

[Hank Rearden]

"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to smoke tobacco," the judge wrote.

Once a sufficient number of people have been assaulted by these petty tyrants (taxes, regulations, restrictions, nannystatisms), we'll reach critical mass and this Big Stupid Government will crash. I don't give a s#$t what BSG "thinks" anymore, because they don't respect Constitutional limits to their ambitions, and know many others likewise. There are more every day.

I hope I live long enough to see it. I'm sick to death of the two Big Stupid Government parties and their power-mad, money-mad urges. F 'em.

[jess35]

Where in the Constitution is it written that people have a right to enter a private establishment and NOT encounter tobacco smoke?

[JerseyHighlander]

"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to smoke tobacco," the judge wrote.

"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to consume caffeine," the judge wrote.

"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to consume alcohol," the judge wrote.

"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to consume hydrogenated fats," the judge wrote.

"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to consume peanuts," the judge wrote.

"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to consume porcine products," the judge wrote.

"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to smoke bay leaves," the judge wrote.

"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to traditional medicinal herbs not approved by the FDA," the judge wrote.

[LibFreeOrDie]

I'm sure the reservations will have their own rules concerning tobacco, same as for casinos...

[LibFreeOrDie]

The Enumeration of Forbidden (But Legal) Substances will be next...

[Mears]

ping

[JerseyHighlander]

In my lifetime I've met a woman who is severely allergic to water. Under the nanny state BS philosophy and law this judge's opinion was written, restaurants which serve seafood, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, water should be banned from doing so.

The mere possession of seafood bibs, lobster picks, nutcrackers, shell buckets, and liquid containers of all kinds should be reason enough for the authorities to ticket the restaurateur.

The elite want exceptions to the law, see Michael Bloomberg at a cigar smoking party at a restaurant mere months after the ban went into effect.

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Daily/CA_Daily_News/0,2342,926,00.html

[Doe Eyes]

Whatever happened to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?!

I don't think that's in the Constitution.

[DakotaRed]

"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to smoke tobacco," the judge wrote.

And, how many of these "judges" that make such statements also don't see a problem if someone fires up a joint?

I can see the battle looming on the horizon already. What with all the increase in "medical marijuana," prescribed by any doctor of course, will the suit be that a worker may light up at their desk at work, when it's time to "take their dose?"

Hey, second hand marijuana smoke may give cancer too, but at least all around them will be happy, if not a little hungry

[unseen]

The Government has no 'fundamental constitutional right' that is not strictly defined in the Constitution. After rereading my Constitution I find no where in it that the Government has a right to tell me what I can and can not do to my body except in the case of interstate trade and national security. I did find that ALL rights not spelled out in the Constiution are granted to the STATES and TO the PEOPLE. So government back-off

[SkymanOH]

Good illustration showing his flawed argument.

[Eastbound]

Good post.

And nice going, judge. You did more to reveal to millions of Americans what is going on in our court system with that one, short statement than all other judges have in the past 70 years who have tried to keep it hidden.

[EGPWS]

"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to smoke tobacco,"

I have been unknowingly breaking the law all these years?

[EGPWS]

"Individuals have no 'fundamental' constitutional right to smoke tobacco," the judge wrote.

Short and sweet...

[Smartaleck]

Hommosexual acts in private is ok, just don't smoke while doing so?