How can anyone not see that smoking bans are unconstitutional?

Question

To my knowledge segragation was outlawed years ago. By enforcing this ban that forces smokers to go outside you might as well send Rosa Parks back to the back of the bus. This country becomes more and more of a dictatorship every year and everyone just sits back and takes it. How many more rights will be taken from us? The same people who pushed for this ban are the ones who give no thought to drinking and driving. Obviously they feel that they have a better chance of dying from second hand smoke than they do of killing themselves and innocent bystanders while they're pounding down beer and rum and coke.

Answer 1

It was just another small step the govt took into our personal lives. It started with seat belt and helmet laws, moved onto smoking and now is getting involved in what type of cooking oils may be used in restaurants. In case you dont know, certain types of cooking oils have been banned in NY. They are approved for use by the FDA, however. It wont be long until the only restaurants left will be governemnt owned and after we go out to eat we can check out the weekly book burning.
These things will continue to happen until we as voters say "f**k you give me my rights back"
I do not have a problem with smoking bans, but let the establishment decide. They should determine policy and the patrons can vote with their dollars.

Answer 2

Smoking bans by themselves are not unconstitutional,, I don't believe, but the way they were enforced certainly is in question.

I don't know if you can equate the smoking ban with civil rights, in the context you are referring to, since there are two different issues altogether.

Places that I have seen across the country had made a feeble attempt to comply within law barely. What they did in most cases was to select a small section of the restaurant and designate that as the smokers section. All this did was to comply to the letter of law that was established . The result was to concentrate a smoker's area with lots of smoke and the methods of ventilation most of the time were very inadequate which allowed second-hand smoke to permeate the restaurant .Nonetheless, it was in compliance .

I am neither in defense of a smoker, or a nonsmoker but I believe they went about it in a slipshod manner when it came to terms of enforcement. But it was done the way it was and that was that.

Now it's a whole new ball game, and a huge percentage of the country is now virtually smoke-free. And that is a good for the non-smokers obviously, and a really big incentive for us smokers to quit. And yes, I am a smoker.!!!

Answer 3

I used to get on this same soapbox--and then I moved to California just as the law was passed there, banning smoking from inside restaurants, bars & nightclubs.
You know, if you take the politics out of it, it's actually not a bad idea. I still smoke outside of my own home and it's always a shock when I go to someone else's place and smell the old smoke that lingers inside of their homes. So it sounds like a bad idea, but in hindsight, you'll see (once you adjust to it) that it's actually an excellent idea.
To prove this, after living in San Diego for a couple of years, I drove back to Seattle where you could (I think you still can) smoke indoors--and all the restaurants, bars & nightclubs smelled horrible!
Give the idea a chance first, it's really not as bad as you think.

Answer 4

Questioning why we have the freedom to endanger others by getting drunk is a valid question.

But generally speaking, one's right to do what they want ends when it negatively affects others. It has been solidly established by the medical community that second-hand smoke is harmful to one's health. Employees of bars and clubs have had to suck down the smoke of others to their own detriment. Forcing others to inhale your smoke is not a right.

With all due respect, comparing one's right to smoke indoors with the civil rights movement is comparing apples and oranges on a lot of levels. The medical community has not found that allowing people of different races to use the same restrooms or eat at the same restaurants or ride the same bus seats is harmful to anyone's health.

I sympathize with those who are addicted to nicotine & have to jump through a few hoops in order to continue smoking. But I'm not so sympathetic as to have my toddler inhale second-hand smoke throughout a dinner at a restaurant.

Answer 5

I'm going to get thumbs-down for my answer, but I don't really care. This is the way I look at it (and I'm a smoker):
Those who are attempting to ban smoking in all public places are in the wrong.
BUT, so are those who expect to be able to smoke wherever they want.
What we need to do is COMPROMISE. Allow smoking in bars, if the owner of the bar so chooses to allow it. For other places, these laws should apply:
1. Smoking sections need to be COMPLETELY separate from non-smoking sections.
2. No employee should be forced to enter the smoking sections. If they CHOOSE to enter them, they must sign a waiver stating that they will not sue if they wind up with emphysema or another lung disease at a later time.
3. The ventilation systems in the smoking sections must be such that NO odor escapes the section. If a business refuses to comply, they should be subject to the same punishments they would for any other health violation.

No, non-smokers should not be subjected to cigarette smoke. However, I should have the FREEDOM to sit in a bar or restaurant and smoke a cigarette if I so choose.

Answer 6

The courts equate smoking with drug abuse. It is an addiction just like cocaine, crack, and marijuana. Would you say the same thing about using these drugs? It should be a "right"? Nicatine smoke harms others from second hand smoke. So the Law must protect the health and safety of everyone equally - the public, children, and the drug addicted persons, too.

Answer 7

I'm fine with keeping public smoking around provided that employees who have to work in smoking environments get hazard pay. Secondhand smoke may not have much impact on an occasional night out, but it's not fair to working people who have to breathe it for year after year.

Answer 8

I quit after smoking for 35 years and have no intention to smoke again. If someone wants to smoke, fine that is their prerogative. I would not impose my will on anyone and don't expect any one to impose their will on me. It's not the second hand smoke that does the damage, it's the first hand smoke that does! Wake up and stop wasting our time and money with regulations that are as dumb as those that legislate them!

Answer 9

In my opinion smoking bans are constitutional. I am living in DK and you can't believe how many people are smoking here: in schools, trains etc. I simply have no choice but die from second hand smoke.

Answer 10

Equating not being able to smoke to civil rights is like comparing the atrocities committed by Bush to those committed by Hitler. Both men suck but we can all agree Hitler was much worse and they should not be compared. Smoking is nothing like civil rights and to compare the two is to diminish the importance of civil rights. You can quit smoking you cannot quit being black.