English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

and what amendment would this be applicable to?

2007-01-13 17:47:01 · 24 answers · asked by Dink 3 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

24 answers

yes it violates the right of business owners. but here's what raises the hair on the back of my neck. the city/county/state does not have money to fix the schools or hire teachers or police, but they got millions, and i mean millions of dollars to give to the department of heath and the smoke hater to lie to the people that second hand smoke kills. second hand smoke does smell bad, but is it second hand smoke that is casing your health problems. there not sure. it maybe the cleaners you use in your house . but there not sure. it maybe the food you eat.. hmmm there not sure. we all know that the fumes from your tail pipe are not healthy, but they won't tell you that it may be the cause of your health problems, they like driving there bmw's.

2007-01-17 13:49:34 · answer #1 · answered by Michael B 2 · 0 0

I feel that any smoking ban violates our rights. It is not really addressed in the Constitution but what's next? In Colorado, the smoking ban was voted down twice by the people and the legislature passed it anyway. That is unconstitutional. Smoking is legal and I am over 21. What right do they have to dictate so much of our personal lives except that we are giving them the power to do so by accepting these unconstitutional bans. A business owner has the right to have their establishment be a non-smoking or smoking establishment. APA (pool) leagues used to be huge here and now the small neighborhood bars are going out of business left and right. So who's that helping? No one quit smoking because of the ban. It's just geography. Why don't the nonsmokers just open nonsmoking establishments? This country is supposed to be about freedom and choice. But the government is hell-bent on stripping away our rights and we do nothing to stop them but complain - to each other. Until someone stands up and challenges these breeches of our freedoms, it will only get worse.

2007-01-14 02:08:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

smoking kills ,Second hand smoke does too. The bogus cigarrette company claims that it didnt matter have already been defunked, and they are paying for it. Many people died becasue of their lies telling our grandfathers and others that it really wasn't that bad. Unfortunately that era is now over and people are a bit smarter. We can't turn the clocks back There is always a way to "work this" for a business. Look at other angles for incrreasing business, Dont be a victim, change is here for better or worse and it will not kill business. You can appeal to a healthier,perhaps wealthier crowd and leave the smokers to find other places.Life goes on.
Yeah I think the govt can and does legislate limits for the public good. I would be OK if that were banned as long as every other form of welfare,corporate welfare included is banned as well I dont want to pay for any cigarrette or alcohols industries tax breaks then have to pay again when it impacts the entire populations health, costing us BILLIONS. UNless we as a contry decide we need to go totally libertarian its not gonna work that way though. I dont think we will go that route.

2007-01-14 02:55:57 · answer #3 · answered by FoudaFaFa 5 · 1 0

I personally think that people that put these bans into affect should be horsewhipped.I agree with nonsmokers that don't want to breathe second hand smoke 100 percent..I am allergic to alcohol but dont go to bars personally there is nothing more revolting than smelling alcohol and vomit on someone and some obnoctious drunk saying and acting stupid..guess what I don't go to bars but its their right to do that.. its ok with me .. So I say that nonsmokers should have their rights but why can't smokers have rights to have smoking resturants.I always thought America was freedom..Well I have just seen America go communist where a few dictate how others should live.I personally think its not right nor will it ever be right.Why don't they ban drinking .. ?I hate getting on planes and alcohol being spilled and having to smell it but do you think they would ban it .. geez they would have people killing people and fighting like crazy for it on the planes and smuggling it on board and making it look like something else unfortunately they can hide the fact they are drinking but we can't hide the fact that we are smoking.There should be smoking airlines,trains,buses , and restaurants and etc.. There is nothing about this whole ban that is built on freedom.What else are the going to ban in the future..sex, religion, talking ?what are the few going to take control over now?

2007-01-14 02:01:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

Nobody has the 'right' to smoke.

While the government has a legitimate interest in banning smoking on public property (to protect itself from lawsuits and lower health care costs), private business owners should be allowed to choose whether to allow smoking on their property - as long as they are willing to take responsibility for any damages caused by their decision.

The government doesn't have the right to tell people what to put in their bodies. All drug laws are based on COMMERCE (buying, selling, transporting) because that's all the government is allowed to control. Alcohol and tobacco products are legal (despite being more dangerous than some illegal drugs) because the government makes money by regulating them.

2007-01-14 01:56:33 · answer #5 · answered by gelfling 7 · 2 0

yes. It violates my right to pursuit of happiness, since I enjoy smoking, am considerate of others who don't smoke, and some public housing prohibits it in your own home. The smoking ban was voted in, but the words were very confusing to voters. Who knows the difference between "smokefree" and "smokeless"? That vote was rigged and did not reflect the will of the majority. Thank you for asking

2007-01-14 01:54:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

I dont think so. I compare it to the seatbelt law. Taken by itself it looks like a personal choice. But when you take all the smokers in the state and add there cumulated health cost you have big problem that the states population as a whole has to take care of(tax dollars). With that in mind the state has the right to make the ban.

2007-01-14 01:51:06 · answer #7 · answered by bradnick2000 3 · 2 2

Do you think the local, state or federal government has the right to say people can no longer use salt or sugar? We can no longer drink coffee or beer? We can only have one vehicle per family? We can no longer wear t-shirts or jeans? Some things are just not government business.

2007-01-14 03:57:35 · answer #8 · answered by DixeVil 5 · 2 0

yes ,what is next banning ,farts, blue jeans,hats, beards
they have banned smoking on hospital grounds and are going to give you a fine if you are in your car on the lot and smoking
it sucks: what you do in your car is your own biz wax..........

pissed off smoker in Ohio

2007-01-14 02:06:35 · answer #9 · answered by alleykhad607 5 · 3 0

Ohio: Smoking Ban ... that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever. ...

2007-01-14 01:55:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers