Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Constitutional Issues Smoking in Public and Whose Rights are they?

It's just another developing prohibition. Americans cannot be trusted to live in any society without Big Daddy. That is not the problem! The problem is that the American people are demanding it......and the list goes on!

My better half suffers from a similar allergic reaction to certain colognes and perfumes; however, it has never occured to her to believe that she has a right to a "fragrance-free zone" whenever she is in publicly-accessible places. She is a rather unsophisticated woman who has been raised on the backward notion that life is loaded with certain risks that we simply cannot avoid under all circumstances.

You seem to be equating all concept of right to Mao's oft-quoted reference to power coming from the barrel of a gun.

We are dissecting that particular subject because you created this thread since smoking "rights" was regarded as OT in the parent thread. But I don't think it's necessary to draw the line at smoking.

How about the regulation of trans fats in public eateries? That seems to be moving up to "Category 5" in the named examples of the inner fascist let loose.

First, I believe Issodhos stated rather clearly that no one responding on this thread had asserted such a claim.

Second, governments do not possess rights, natural or otherwise, but they possess powers which are, ideally, legitimately derived only from the consent of the governed.

Which do you think came first, people owning/possessing things, or a government telling them what they could/could not own/possess?

If one understands the concept that governments are instituted to secure the pre-existing rights, then one understands that it exists whether or not it is embedded in the philosophical roots of this or of any other nation.

No one on this thread has asserted that there is an absolute right to smoke; OTOH, I get the distinct impression that you feel that government has an absolute right power to regulate smoking any place that it chooses.

I know I can only jump in and out of this thread, and I apologize for that, but -- since when is it "government" that is a problem here? I know that in this part of the country, cities who have adopted a smoking ban in businesses have done so as the result of a vote by the citizens. I have a feeling many cities have had such elections.

That's not government imposing itself on the rights of citizens, or telling citizens what they can do - that's government carrying out the expressed wishes of citizens.

And if it were the wishes of the citizens that you could not paint your house yellow...or that you could not own a Chihuahua? Would not that still be government imposing itself "in the name of the people"?

All a referendum does in this type of regulation of privately-owned property is substitute the tyranny of the mob invoking government power for some bureaucracy directly invoking it.

Afterthought: Putting SPQR on something does not make it right.

Ron, you missed my point. People in this thread, including yourself, are upset about what "the government" is up to. It isn't the gummint, my friend, it's our fellow citizens. The goverment is not some bogeyman to blame for everything, particularly in these cases.

And for what it's worth, there are many neighborhoods with exactly that type of rule. A friend of mine has no say in the color he can paint his front door. He chooses to live under those association rules; I do not.

But I don't blame governmental bureaucracy for what citizens have chosen to do.

Julia, I got the point, but may not have made that clear. Those saying "the people want it that way" and using a referendum - a method of directing government power - are merely aiding and abetting an immoral government interference.

As to a housing association - private property where the owners in common establish those covenants and anyone entering therein is presumed to have read, understood and accepted such limitations as a part of his voluntary entry - purchase of property - into the community.

IIRC back in the late 40s and early 50s, the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota made it a crime to bring yellow-colored margarine into the state - done in the name of the people, many of whom were dairy farmers.

Julia, it is often the city/county supervisors who put the bans on smoking; it starts in the bars and resaurants who cannot open without city/county permits. Many of the larger malls are given permits with certain limits of their users. This smoking ban happens to be one you agree with but don't be shocked with other bans will seem to you as unnecessary and intrusive. I grew up in neighborhoods where many kept horses, goats, chickens and cows. Now it take a certain kind of zoning to be able to have these animals. In many other neighborhoods the teenage kids are not allowed to work on their cars in the front yard.

This government power surge is often when a neighborhood is over populated and becomes uncomfortable for others. I have moved away from civilization easily a dozen times in my years and ran out of places to move in California. In Cambria CA, we all had fireplaces to keep us warm in the winter months and would order cords of wood to be kept under our houses so we could be content when the power would go out during fires, floods and earthquakes. One biddy who did not like the smell of wood (I believe she was from New York) picketed the County Zoning board who, rather than have to listen to her whine, banned wood burning stoves. She would stand on her back patio searching the sky for smoke. She never thought of moving but simply wanted to flex her power over her neighbors.

It is amazing that it has become obvious even on Reader Rant who will step into any discussion of freedoms and try to plow over the freedoms of others. It is almost to the point of being expected.

We live in a world of mandated laws involving our habits. I am the one who will not bend to this silly power. It amuses me that when a few people complain about loud music, smoke, fast cars and animals in the neighborhood it soon gets picked by some level of government who will add a tax on anything they can. The taxes on cigarettes are only for the additional income the government receives. None of them give a damn if we smoke or not. Our animals need permits which raises revenue. Expensive cars and gas are often taxed beyond the ability of middleclass people to own. Homeowners fees are taxed therefore making them higher and more restrictive than necessary.

I moved into this house 5 and half years ago. I never received a copy of the Home Owners Rules and wasn't here a month before I was reported for feeding the birds in my back yard. My neighbor reported me for listening to the N.Y. Metropolitican opera on Saturday morning (11 am) and for feeding the birds. I had no idea it was against the law and I was told I would be fined if I continued in my sinfull ways. I spent $4000 to build a redwood 6 foot fence around my property and had to pay a fee to the county for a permit to do that.

Even in my retirement there are many who want the power to tell everyone what to do. Thank you folks, you are destroying our individual rights and you don't even know it. You will not stop until every damn human on the planet lives like clones with all our nasty habits fined out of existence. What the hell will you whine about then? At this point, anarchy sounds too good to be true.

Sandy, your overgeneralizations, and your insults to all liberals, are starting to be vaguely annoying.

Here's my question to all: If the community can't pass laws about public health hazards, and it's very clear from many of these posts that state/fed government shouldn't come even close to a decision like this -- then who is supposed to pass laws and enforce them? Once again - we are not talking about a habit, we are talking about a health hazard.

Julia, I am a classic liberal. If you look that up you will understand that we believe we can direct our own lives without a constant gathering of opinions. If I were a Conservative I would be totally pissed off at your statements. But I'm not and your statements roll off me like water.

I will always fight the controls over individual rights by people who cannot define a health hazard. Training people as collectives in a free nation is a terrible hazard to our physical and mental health.