Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Illinois Smoking Ban, uncontitutional?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    When we talk about smoking........THERE IS NO UNBIASED STUDIES ON THIS TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You can find 100 studies funded by tobacco which say that second hand smoke will not only NOT cause cancer, but women will find you more attractive and random strangers will just give you stuff.

    You can find 100 studies funded by the American Lung Association that say that as soon as you finish that 100,000th cigarette, you instantly drop dead.

    This is one of those "Pick a side" discussions. But if it's been established that smoking increases the odds of the smokers developing cancer or some other lung desease, then it's not out of the realm of possibility that second hand smoke has some impact on the long term health of non-smokers. You just can't rule it out.

    My father, a non-smoker had surgery to remove a cancerous growth from his left lung while my mother, an smoker for 50+ years, remains cancer free. I can't use this as the standard because everyone's individual health is unique to that individual.

    Comment


    • #32
      [QUOTE=Cable;1385138]When we talk about smoking........THERE IS NO UNBIASED STUDIES ON THIS TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      You can find 100 studies funded by tobacco which say that second hand smoke will not only NOT cause cancer, but women will find you more attractive and random strangers will just give you stuff.

      You can find 100 studies funded by the American Lung Association that say that as soon as you finish that 100,000th cigarette, you instantly drop dead.

      This is one of those "Pick a side" discussions. But if it's been established that smoking increases the odds of the smokers developing cancer or some other lung desease, then it's not out of the realm of possibility that second hand smoke has some impact on the long term health of non-smokers. You just can't rule it out. TO CABLE- You are right,we can go back and forth about these smoking studies about second hand smoke,and yes with out a doubt smoking is bad (for the smoker),but my whole objection to the smoking ban is this,everyone knows smoking is bad for your health,but there has not been any documented cases were a person has contracted cancer from second hand smoke from going to bars,restaurants ect,and the government has no business telling a business owner that you can't allow smoking in your place of business because we(the government) think it might cause cancer,people go out to bars and they drink and smoke,and everyone knows this,so if you are worried about contracting cancer from second hand smoke from going to a place were it is allowed,then DON'T GO,it's not the governments place to tell me what i can and can't do in my place of business(as long as it's legal). When the government is stopping people from doing something thats perfectly legal,they (the government) is interfering with my right to the pursuit of happiness.If second hand smoke is killing people in the record numbers that the surgeon general and the American cancer society or any other anti- smoking group thinks,why don't the government ban smoking altogether? I'll answer that one for you, MONEY,the tax money that the federal and local government is making off the sale of cigarettes is the real reason they will not put a total ban on it,so the government needs to stop pretending like they really care,and stop passing these feel good laws,because they don't help.
      Last edited by benron; 08-26-2008, 07:47 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        But bars are already heavily regulated. They can't open prior to a certain time, have to stop serving liquor at a certain time, have to close at at certain time, can't serve to anyone under a certain age, can't overserve anyone, and in a lot of towns "happy hour" is illegal. The government is already firmly entrenched in how those businesses are run.

        What about the right to the pursuit of happiness of the non-smoking majority, or the non-smoking employees. Limiting your employment pool to smokers only would rapidly exhaust your applicant pool.

        You also have to keep in mind that lung disease is a hot political topic and no politician, EVEN THE SMOKERS, are going to commit political suicide and oppose a smoking ban. So you also have to ask yourself would a Judge, who was either elected of appointed by a politician, make a fair ruling on this issue.

        And here's my disclaimer again: I'm not saying that second hand smoke causes cancer or other lung illnesses, BUT YOU CAN'T RULE IT OUT! Nobody has proof that it does and nobody has proof that it doesen't.

        Comment


        • #34
          Well, I would like to ask if we could get a little back to the actual topic at hand please; that topic being the Constitutionality of the smoking ban.
          I will respond when I can to Matalots' post, but I don’t have the time right now. It is, at least, a good argument though. That is something I have yet to hear.
          Last edited by tutt101; 08-27-2008, 06:25 AM. Reason: quick correction
          "Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

          - Frederick Douglass

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by tutt101 View Post
            Well, I would like to ask if we could get a little back to the actual topic at hand please; that topic being the Constitutionality of the smoking ban.
            I will respond when I can to Matalots' post, but I don’t have the time right now. It is, at least, a good argument though. That is something I have yet to hear.
            Ok to get back on topic,is the IL smoking ban unconstitutional?the answer is yes in my opinion,because the declaration of independence guarantees us unalienable rights such as the pursuit of happiness,which allows us to pursue any legal business or vocation in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties,so as to give them their highest enjoyment,this right is also guaranteed in the IL constitution's bill of rights section 1. If i own a bar (my pursuit of happiness),and smoking is legal in the state of IL,and i want to allow smoking in my business,(because this makes me happy),the state is infringing on my right to the pursuit of happiness if they ban smoking, which smoking is currently legal. This is my opinion about the states that imposes smoking bans,since the pursuit to happiness is not a right set forth to us in the us constitution and is unenforceable in the us supreme courts,they(the states) feel they can get away with it. To implement a smoking ban on someones private business is illegal according to the Declaration of Independence and the IL constitutions bill of rights, again this is my opinion.
            Last edited by benron; 08-27-2008, 09:21 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Sorry about the delayed response, I hope you reply!
              Originally posted by Matalots View Post
              According to the Surgeon General cigarettes smoking accounts for more deaths annually than alcohol, illegal drugs, AIDS, suicide, fire, and guns combined.

              (Note more deaths than everything that currently is covered by one law or another)
              I am not, and never have, argued this point. The point I have is that the laws are there to protect innocent individuals from others. Alcohol and illegal drugs: you can’t drive impaired because it you hurt others. Smoking has no impact on driving. AIDS and suicide have no laws I can think of offthe top of my head that are relevant here. Fire and guns: you can’t catch someone else’s house on fire or shoot someone for obvious reasons.

              All laws inhibit rights...appears this one is under your skin.
              I will admit, it has.
              Yes this law inhibits some peoples rights but protects other peoples rights....innocent non smokers.
              That’s the problem I have right there! Everything else is pretty much out the window. “Innocent non smokers” do not have the right to tell a property owner that they can not allow smokers onto or into their property because they want to go there as well and they do not want to be exposed! If it’s my property, I can allow or not allow whomever I want in! That’s why they have signs that say they retain the right to refuse service to anyone. That’s why we can arrest people who they tell to leave and refuse, because they are trespassing…because it’s private property. They are not protecting anyone’s right.
              People who do not smoke and go somewhere where smoking is allowed are not innocent, they can go elsewhere!
              If you look at the statistics since the inception of smoking bans there has been a reduction in lives lost due to smoking related issues.
              Just because you save lives doesn’t mean something is Constitutional.

              If you find the law unconstitutional then challange it.
              I can’t, I don’t smoke and have no legal standing.

              Drinking alcohol is legal...you can't do that everywhere either.
              That’s true, but for other reasons that do impact innocent individuals who have no other choice and occurs in public. (…and not the public as defined in this ban, I’m talking about the actual public)
              "Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

              - Frederick Douglass

              Comment


              • #37
                Bring it to court and get laughed at. Or just contact a civil attorney and he'll explain why you're a jackass.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by tutt101 View Post
                  Sorry about the delayed response, I hope you reply!


                  I am not, and never have, argued this point. The point I have is that the laws are there to protect innocent individuals from others. Alcohol and illegal drugs: you can’t drive impaired because it you hurt others. Smoking has no impact on driving. AIDS and suicide have no laws I can think of offthe top of my head that are relevant here. Fire and guns: you can’t catch someone else’s house on fire or shoot someone for obvious reasons.


                  I will admit, it has.

                  That’s the problem I have right there! Everything else is pretty much out the window. “Innocent non smokers” do not have the right to tell a property owner that they can not allow smokers onto or into their property because they want to go there as well and they do not want to be exposed! If it’s my property, I can allow or not allow whomever I want in! That’s why they have signs that say they retain the right to refuse service to anyone. That’s why we can arrest people who they tell to leave and refuse, because they are trespassing…because it’s private property. They are not protecting anyone’s right.
                  People who do not smoke and go somewhere where smoking is allowed are not innocent, they can go elsewhere!

                  Just because you save lives doesn’t mean something is Constitutional.


                  I can’t, I don’t smoke and have no legal standing.


                  That’s true, but for other reasons that do impact innocent individuals who have no other choice and occurs in public. (…and not the public as defined in this ban, I’m talking about the actual public)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by tutt101 View Post
                    “Innocent non smokers” do not have the right to tell a property owner that they can not allow smokers onto or into their property because they want to go there as well and they do not want to be exposed! If it’s my property, I can allow or not allow whomever I want in! That’s why they have signs that say they retain the right to refuse service to anyone. That’s why we can arrest people who they tell to leave and refuse, because they are trespassing…because it’s private property. They are not protecting anyone’s right.
                    People who do not smoke and go somewhere where smoking is allowed are not innocent, they can go elsewhere!

                    Just because you save lives doesn’t mean something is Constitutional.
                    This is a question of should the 1st ammendment rights of the minority outweigh the 1st ammendment rights of the majority.

                    And the government can and DOES tell you what to do with your property if you open a business on that property, ESPECIALLY A BAR!!

                    You apply for a business license, apply for a liquor license. Some towns have public hearings to decide if you do get a liquor license. If the community denies you a liquor license are they violating your 1st ammendment rights?

                    I'm just trying to understand the rational. You say your a non-smoker, yet you have a problem with a law that dosen't effect you.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cable View Post

                      I'm just trying to understand the rational. You say your a non-smoker, yet you have a problem with a law that dosen't effect you.
                      I'm finding that it's apparently a very hard thing to put into words on a forum.

                      First, I feel that IF it is a violation of the Constitution, it effects everyone, even if it’s not directly.

                      My rational is this, they regulate alcohol because of the impact it has. Someone drinks and wherever they go, they are affecting others. If they drive, they put others in danger. If they go out in public they become a nuisance and create disturbances. IF you don’t limit and control how and where people can drink you have no right (as the government) do check on them (as far as underage drinking goes), or shut them down if and when needed. The list of reasons goes on and on with respect to how alcohol affects others directly even when they try to stay away from it. Therefore it can be regulated.

                      This ban, in contrast, says that I can not have a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION that does not allow non-members in, and allow smoking in my building. Get away from the bars; VFW’s, Knights of Columbus, Moose Loges, all private organizations with voluntary membership who vote on their own rules, but they can not allow smoking in their own building?
                      "Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

                      - Frederick Douglass

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Smoking is bad, i hate second hand smoke. yuk
                        “One person can make a difference and every person should try.” JFKsigpic

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by tutt101 View Post
                          This ban, in contrast, says that I can not have a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION that does not allow non-members in, and allow smoking in my building. Get away from the bars; VFW’s, Knights of Columbus, Moose Loges, all private organizations with voluntary membership who vote on their own rules, but they can not allow smoking in their own building?
                          Private organization=business=regulation.
                          If you need a license to operate your private club, YOU ARE A BUSINESS!

                          I get your point. But all the organizations you mentioned are businesses.
                          And as for court challenges................

                          In Texas a federal judge upheld Houston’s comprehensive smoke-free ordinance, rejecting a challenge from a coalition of Houston bars and nightclubs that the ordinance was preempted by a state law that regulates alcohol license and permits. Houston Association of Alcoholic Beverage Permit Holders v. City of Houston.

                          In Colorado, a district court judge overturned a lower court ruling that Colorado’s statewide smoke-free law was unconstitutional. People v. Granieri. Colorado’s state law, which passed in 2006, prohibits smoking in public places, except airport lounges, cigar bars, and (most recently) casinos. The plaintiff, an Adams County cabaret owner, who was cited last year for violating the law, challenged the ordinance, claiming that it violated the due process and equal protection rights of owners who wanted to establish their business as cigar bars and allow smoking. The district court judge found that Adams County officials acted in the county’s public interest in protecting the health of its citizens by enacting the local smoke-free law. People v. Granieri.

                          Ohter courts have ruled that as long as smoke-free legislation is rationally related to a legitimate government goal, the Constitution will not stand in the way of its passage. And that goal is to protect the public's health from smoking and the potential risk of second hand smoke.
                          Last edited by Cable; 09-11-2008, 04:46 AM.

                          Comment

                          MR300x250 Tablet

                          Collapse

                          What's Going On

                          Collapse

                          There are currently 10104 users online. 370 members and 9734 guests.

                          Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

                          Welcome Ad

                          Collapse
                          Working...
                          X