Law School Discussion

Smoking Ban

Re: Smoking Ban
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2006, 01:56:53 PM »
It's funny, here in AZ they get by the law by cutting a hole in the ceiling. Essentially, the building is completely enclosed on all 4 sides but the center is completely open, much like a courtyard but they have large overhangs on each wall to protect people from the elements. Combine that with AZ's warm weather, and some space heaters at night, and "presto," smoking inside bars is allowed!

Re: Smoking Ban
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2006, 11:05:22 AM »
As if the the ban on smoking in bars wasn't bad enough when I lived in Berkeley, San Diego just banned smoking at public beaches and parks. First offense fine: $250. Apparently the "healthists" are having their day.
We also just had a Proposition (like your Issue) to add more than $2 to the current tax, taking the price of a pack of ciggarettes to over $7.  Here is a quote from a healthist website, "Coalition for a healthy California,"
"Imagine that a simple “yes” vote could save a city the size of Irvine"   -  YES, imagine. Then GET REAL.
 

Re: Smoking Ban
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2006, 09:47:12 PM »
Galt is right - it is an employee issue.  It is no less constitutional than other workplace safety regulations.

As for takings, def. no - if you look @ Penn Central have to look at what has been taken vs. overall property rights - right to smoke doesn't make up a significant enough part of overall property rights.

Re: Smoking Ban
« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2006, 10:17:59 PM »
We have had this in Florida for awhile. You will be suprised how many cigarete smokers quit because of it. It is terrible! I can never find a lighter when I need one!

AmicThisDOTcom

  • ****
  • 144
  • Legal humor for all legal professionals!!!
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Smoking Ban
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2006, 05:35:27 PM »
This has been going on in NY for years.  Mayor Bloomberg - the first Jewish Nazi!  I understand why it is technically not unconstitutional, but screw it --- it's unconstitutional!  Actually, some cities have bans on the street --- seriously.  When I was in Seattle, there were many areas outdoors that you could not smoke --- ridiculous!  When NY first got the ban, there was talk of bars privatizing --- becoming clubs, so to speak --- where patrons paid dues --- to avoid this nonsense.  My fave situation is the bar in Madison Square Garden.  So, you're there for a game, hanging out in the bar, drinking, and of course, you want a smoke.  But unlike a storefront bar, where you can go out, have a smoke, and come back in, MSG doesn't allow you to go out and come back it, even if you retain your stub.  So, bottom line, if you go to the Play by Play in MSG, you can't even "step out" for a smoke.  RIDICULOUS!!!  Finally, I find it amusing how Vegas sidesteps all this BS --- it's all about the Benjamins!  Even the airport has smoking booths with slot machines.  Of course, it's hilarious, because you can't even see into these clear booths.  All you can see is billowing smoke.  But no other airport that I know of has that smoking option --- slot machines make it so.

Re: Smoking Ban
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2006, 07:10:28 PM »
To me, it is definitely unconstitutional because it boils down to this: it is the legislation of taste.  Plus, are we forgetting here that the science is all over the place regarding the dangers of secondhand smoking?  There are some studies that say that secondhand smoke causes cancer, while other studies say the exact opposite.  Bottom line: if the science is iffy, as it is here, the government has no business telling private-business owners how to run their business. 

Re: Smoking Ban
« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2006, 04:02:44 PM »
The bottom line is they wouldn't have to make any laws restricting smoking if smokers weren't such dumb a**es. . .how hard is it to figure out you shouldn't smoke in a playground, right in front of the entrance to a building, in a restaurant where people are eating, or in an enclosed area?  Something about that nicotine rush makes people lose any vestige of common sense.

Re: Smoking Ban
« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2006, 05:08:08 PM »
The policy is intended to benefit public health in a public space. I am not going to go any further than that, since Const. Law doesn't happen for me yet. What I will say is that the courts are generally supportive of these types of measures.

Smoking in a public place is a legitimate health problem that the government can control.

Re: Smoking Ban
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2006, 02:00:44 PM »
Quote
The bottom line is they wouldn't have to make any laws restricting smoking if smokers weren't such dumb a**es. .

Somewhere on this site is a picture of the pot calling the kettle black. Read it. Study it. Own it.
We wouldn't have to make any laws banning illegal immigration, banning people of color, banning certain people from voting, etc... etc... "if they weren't such dumba**es, too, right? I have stopped myself from cussing you out for all your stupid misleading posts trying to get people to buy your *&^%, but this just was too stupid to pass up.

DumbA**!!

Re: Smoking Ban
« Reply #19 on: December 30, 2006, 11:52:09 PM »
To me, it is definitely unconstitutional because it boils down to this: it is the legislation of taste.  Plus, are we forgetting here that the science is all over the place regarding the dangers of secondhand smoking?  There are some studies that say that secondhand smoke causes cancer, while other studies say the exact opposite.   Bottom line: if the science is iffy, as it is here, the government has no business telling private-business owners how to run their business. 

That secondhand smoke cures cancer?



Although that would be one opposite, that is not what I meant, and you know it.  I guess I should have specifically stated what I meant, even though I was sure it could easily be inferred.  Anyway, here is what I thought I had previously stated: there are some studies out there that say that secondhand smoke causes cancer, while others say that it does NOT cause cancer. 

Bottom line can be summed up as this:  until there are enough peer-reviewed studies that definitively state that there is a causative, and not just correlative, link re secondhamd smoke and cancer, the government has no business telling private business owners what to do.