Help fast!!!!! Which amendment does banning smoking go against?

Question

Which amendment does banning smoking go against, also i would be grateful if you could qoute something from that amendment

Answer 1

None specifically.
Though it would fall under the 9th Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

But then so would many other things fall under the protection of the ninth Amendment.
Another way of saying it would be "I reserve the right to do anything I darn well please as long as it does not cause injury to, or interfere with the rights of, my fellow citizens.
Which therein would lie the problem in regards to smoking bans. It is said that secondhand smoke is harmful to non-smokers.

Now is it right that the government can make such laws which deprive the rights of business owners to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments?
I don't think so.
The people (or private industry/commerce) could implement the effects of a smoking ban (as well as pretty much everthing else) much more effectively than the government ever will.

"hey buddy, the sign says no smoking in my place of business"

Answer 2

I think the federal government might be able to ban smoking through the commerce clause. However, the clause (and it's not an amendment, it's in the other parts of the constitution) says the federal government (not the states) can regulate "interstate" commerce. That means commerce between the states. In the last century, the commerce clause has been used to regulate all kinds of things including restaurants and hotels from excluding people on the basis of race. The idea is that everything in the commerce stream is affected by interstate commerce. A restaurant in Mississippi gets it's fish from a state on the east coast, the tomatoes from California, and it's corn from Iowa and its napkins from Georgia. The pesticides to kill insects in the California tomatoes come from Arizona and the wood for the Georgia napkins comes from Oregon. As such, the Feds can step in.

The Federal Drug Administration regulates all kinds of drugs through the commerce clause. Tobacco and other kinds of substances like that can be banned.

Now, if I were a smoker, I might make an argument that a ban on Smoking violates the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments and the Equal protection clause of the 14th (the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause only affects the states, but the 5th Amendment Due Process clause incorporates an equal protection clause affecting the feds), because smoking has been a right Americans have enjoyed for three or four hundred years. Because we have had this right for so long, it is a fundamental liberty interest under the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments (look at the amendments; there are two of them: one for the fed and one for the states). As a fundamental liberty interest, the government has the burden of showing a compelling interest with no less restrictive alternatives.

I would think there is a compelling interest: health. And what would the less restrictive alternatives be? Let 'em smoke and die? No. There is probably no restrictive alternative.

Moreover, if smoking is not a fundamental liberty interest, then the government doesn't have the burden of showing anything. The individual who brings the suit trying to make the law unconstitutional would have to show that there is no rational basis for the law. He'd be unable to do that as the rational basis is health.

As such, while you can make all sorts of arguments, the federal government and the states can ban smoking. What keeps it legal is the millions of Americans who smoke and the huge tobacco industry. Tobacco probably spends huge amounts of money on lobbying in Washington and many politicians in Washington owe their political fortunes to Tobacco money. That's what really keeps smoking legal.

Answer 3

Do you mean that someone has a theory that some amendment in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to smoke???

None. No amendment prohibits any level of government from banning smoking. Of course, the federal government was designed to have limited powers, so to whatever extent that the feds are banning smoking they can do so only within their limited powers. But states can ban it completely if they want.

Answer 4

As mentioned, smoking is not a right enumerated in the constitution. If anything, it would be the 10th amendment, giving the powers the federal government doesn't have to the states. Perhaps you could read the constitution and the amendments some time?

Answer 5

How ignorant can you get! No amendment gives you the right to smoke. The constitution specifically states that governments are instituted to keep people from otherwise harming themselves. Read it some time. You can find it on the computer if you do not know how to use books.

Answer 6

According to the Tenth Amendment, only the states and/or the people (i.e., groups of private citizens) have the right to impose or not impose restrictions on smoking.

The Tenth Amendment bars the federal government from getting involved in that issue.

Answer 7

You could probably try arguing the ninth.
Ninth states that you have more rights than specifically listed in the Bill of Rights.
Below is a link to a web site that has the Bill of Rights.

Answer 8

The smoking ban only stops people smoking in enclosed public areas. not smoking all together. Do you think people should be aloud to drive on pavements or above the speed limit? maybe it's my point of view but why should the need of 1 be put in front of the greater good. Sorry I don't agree with you that it in-fridges on your rights in some way.

Answer 9

I don't know.. but is it more important than the amendment which says I don't have to breath your secondhand smoke?

Answer 10

Sorry, you're out of luck. There is no right to smoke in the Constitution.