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

bans on legal products seem un-constituional, right? If smoking can be banned then what other legal products can be banned?

2007-03-06 19:07:53 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

5 answers

EDITED AFTER WHAT FOLLOWS, WHEN I READ TWO ANSWERS ABOVE MINE: JUST BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE DO NOT SMOKE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANY REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF EXISTS THAT SECONDHAND SMOKE EVER, EVEN ONCE, CAUSED NON SMOKERS TO GET ILL! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Yeah, can you believe this malarky? I think it will get to the US Supreme Court because now CITIES are trying to make it against the law that smokers smoke their LEGAL cigarettes in their own cars! The city is Belmont, California. They want to make it so that NOBODY can smoke a cigarette, cigar, or pipe ANYWHERE in the entire city, except inside of their single family, detached, houses (if they are fortunate enough that they bought one).

And guess who is watching it real closely? The state of Hawaii!!! THE STATE wants to make it illegal for people to smoke ANYWHERE on ANY ISLAND of that whole STATE!!! I can just see the orientals, who smoke like chimneys, selling their real estate there, as well as discontinuing spending their money to go there.

I have read a LOT about these movements. Every time a new story is printed in the newspapers, the editors put it to a vote. All the time, about 85% of the people responding say that these laws are a means of the government taking away citizens' legal rights. 15% or fewer say it's okay. They must be the people that claim that secondhand smoke causes disease. There is no proof of that, but there is a lot of proof that POLLUTION in the air does cause disease. Yet, they drive their cars wherever they want.

They have taken a lot of business away from restaurant and tavern owners. So how will they stay in business? I can see it in a warm climate if the business has balconies. But to have these foolish, nagging "smoke nazis" dictate what a business owner can and can't do, especially in cold climates, is really taking it too, too far.

I do wonder how many cocktails the smoke nazis drink before they go out driving around in their fancy cars?

One of my friends mentioned to me how the government is "addicted" to the taxes it gets from those that choose to smoke tobacco products. But it does not tax liquor anything close to tobacco!

However, to answer your question: if the New Church of Global Warming Fear and Dread has its way, they will ban things like paper plates, too! Maybe they'd even ban the use of fuel to heat the church! (Yeah, right: big business runs the power companies--fat chance).

What a country!!!

2007-03-06 19:26:38 · answer #1 · answered by nothoughtpolice 2 · 0 1

The simple answer is: the Constitution says only what it says, and no more. There's nothing in the Constitution relating to smoking, and nothing which can be construed by the courts as a "right" to smoke.

The Constitution does not cover everything, only some things.

Bans on legal products don't seem unconstitutional to me. Some people may consider them wrong, or an infringement on freedom. But there are many laws which constrain or limit people's ability to do certain things, which are not unconstitutional. For example, it's legal to own property, but it's not legal to operate a store on your own property if it's zoned for residential use.

The Federal government and the State governments can make laws on any topic as long as it's not unconstitutional. Something which is not mentioned in the Constitution (such as smoking) and which the courts have not interpreted to be barred by a specific provision of the Constitution, can be banned.

2007-03-06 19:53:34 · answer #2 · answered by Erik 2 · 1 0

Owning cigarettes is not banned. Smoking is not banned. Smoking in the workplace was banned. People work in bars and secondhand smoke makes that an unsafe work environment. We also don't allow people to just randomly shoot strangers even though guns are legal. Sorry if that limits your freedom.

The Constitution does not protect the Right to Smoke.

2007-03-06 19:20:52 · answer #3 · answered by mykll42 2 · 2 0

Now liberal congress wants to allow Unions to be able to infiltrate a company. It may mean jobs for some, but it means higher prices and higher cost of living for everyone.

2007-03-06 19:28:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because it wasn't an issue back then, genius. Nobody knew it made you sick.

2007-03-06 19:19:09 · answer #5 · answered by almighty_malachi 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers