Are cigarette smokers rights protected under 9th amendment?

Question

Are cigarette smoker's rights protected by the 9th amendment? People were smoking cigarettes before the constitution was written, before the bill of rights was written. There has never been a constitution smoking ban. So... shouldn't tobacco smoking be protected under the 9th amendment?

Answer 1

Whatever "rights" you're talking about, they are protected by the 9th only if you are challenging a federal law and only if your challenge is based on claiming that the federal government has gone beyond its enumerated powers.

That's what the 9th means. It's meaning is parallel to the 10th -- the federal government cannot exercise powers not delegated to it.

Answer 2

I'm an Australian, so i have no idea what is written in the "9th Amendment". But...

Back when it was written they did not have as much of an understanding of the devastating impacts that smoking can cause to smokers and the people around smokers.

I'm sure somewhere in your amendments (or constitution or something) theres something that says that people have the right to be healthy. So if people are allowed to smoke wherever they want, this will contradict the law about being healthy.

Personally i think the law should favour giving people the right to be healthy compared to giving people the right to smoke in public places (and hence ruining yours and other peoples health, not to mention the environment).

Answer 3

Not likely. Our nation has a long history of Establishment Clause cases, and they certainly don't always turn out the way we might think they should. For example, in Employment Division v. Smith (1990 Supreme Court case), an Oregon statute criminalized the possession of peyote, a hallucinogenic drug. However, members of the Native American Church challenged the constitutionality of this statute, because their religious ceremonies required the use of peyote. The law was upheld, because the law being challenged was "not specifically directed" at the religious practices of the Native American Church. So, members of the Native American Church, in Oregon, were not allowed to partake in a religious practice that they had done for years. This situation seems pretty similar. Our gov't would likely say that the the federal interest in aiding the health of its citizens outweighs any religious interest, and since the law is not really discriminatory (it's just a general rule/law, as in the Smith case), it could be upheld. On the other hand, you could argue that although this bill does not itself prohibit or regulate religious conduct, it still incidentally burdens religious conduct. This would be a burden that is a product of the choice forced by the law--either you, as a doctor, must violate religious principles, or else you must forgo a valuable gov't benefit. This kind of argument could win in a court. In Sherbert v. Verner, the Supreme Court agreed that such a choice imposed by the government imposed a substantial burden on the claimant's free exercise rights, and that the burden could be justified only by a compelling state interest. (This would still be a weak argument, though, because a court could easily find that healthcare/etc. IS a compelling state interest) As your question stands right now, though, I would say that the Establishment Clause has not yet been violated, because the health care bill is not aimed at Christianity alone. Rather, the bill seems to incidentally burden Christianity/Catholicism, which (given recent court decisions) probably isn't enough to reject this bill.

Answer 4

People were smoking weed to and look where that got em. If its protected by the constitution or not, it's an individual choice and must be respected.

Answer 5

Bill of Rights and Constitution are antidiluvian documents used for reference only. No, smoking shouldn't be protected under any laws. You want to get cancer, get it in your own home without anyone present. And keep in mind that pets die of lung cancer as well.

You want to stink up your life, keep the rest of the world out of it.

Answer 6

I think that all the fanatic non-smokers will be trampled to death in the Nicotine Riots of 2012. :-)

Answer 7

I dont think so.