smokers rights

[mdcsmoker]

"can i bring a case against the federal or states governments for the non smoking bans they have impose on smokers years ago restaurants had to make non smoking sections or face civil lawsuits. isn't this a reverse-discrimination"

 

[Antigone*]

"can i bring a case against the federal or states governments for the non smoking bans they have impose on smokers years ago restaurants had to make non smoking sections or face civil lawsuits. isn't this a reverse-discrimination"

US law only.


...and this is a non-smoking website

 

[Proserpina]

"can i bring a case against the federal or states governments for the non smoking bans they have impose on smokers years ago restaurants had to make non smoking sections or face civil lawsuits. isn't this a reverse-discrimination"

Anyone can sue anyone for anything in the US.

You will not prevail though.

 

[justalayman]

"can i bring a case against the federal or states governments for the non smoking bans they have impose on smokers years ago restaurants had to make non smoking sections or face civil lawsuits. isn't this a reverse-discrimination"

while I agree with your intent as I believe it is improper for the government to regulate a legal activity such as this in the manner they have (and no, I do not smoke and am very anti-smoking to the point that is one reason I quit going to bars 30 years ago) but your chances of getting any traction in a suit is nil.

and no, it would not be reverse discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination regardless who is being discriminated against.

 

[QueenofEngland]

Are you insane? NO. The bans are to protect those who don't smoke from inhaling the cancer-causing carcinogens from what you choose to do. Smokers aren't a protected class. So you have no discrimination cause. Smoking is something you've CHOSEN to do. We all must breathe. You don't have to smoke.

 

[justalayman]

Are you insane? NO. The bans are to protect those who don't smoke from inhaling the cancer-causing carcinogens from what you choose to do. Smokers aren't a protected class. So you have no discrimination cause. Smoking is something you've CHOSEN to do. We all must breathe. You don't have to smoke.

and they do not have to frequent that business.

 

[TheGeekess]

Are you insane? NO. The bans are to protect those who don't smoke from inhaling the cancer-causing carcinogens from what you choose to do. Smokers aren't a protected class. So you have no discrimination cause. Smoking is something you've CHOSEN to do. We all must breathe. You don't have to smoke.

There is no hard and fast evidence that smoking causes cancer, much less second hand smoke. The government has manipulated all related statistics to support the outcome that supports the government's position.

If the government out and out declared cigarettes illegal, then they'd have to find something else to tax exorbitantly to pay for Medicaid.

 

[Proserpina]

There is no hard and fast evidence that smoking causes cancer, much less second hand smoke. The government has manipulated all related statistics to support the outcome that supports the government's position.

If the government out and out declared cigarettes illegal, then they'd have to find something else to tax exorbitantly to pay for Medicaid.

So it's a world-wide conspiracy? The governments of Asia and Europe are also in on it?!

Holy smokes!

 

[Antigone*]

So it's a world-wide conspiracy? The governments of Asia and Europe are also in on it?!

Holy smokes!

Yep, you know it. They said something about a grassy knoll thing

 

[Proserpina]

Yep, you know it. They said something about a grassy knoll thing

I shall grab my tin foil hat immediately and with the appropriate level of urgency and drama.

Curtain call will be forthcoming.

 

[CourtClerk]

I would have to disagree with you all.

US Code 343200.00(a)(b)(c) says that this behavior is unconstitutional and discriminatory.

I would suggest that the OP consult an attorney that specializes in civil litigation and pursue a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Class action even.

 

[Proserpina]

I would have to disagree with you all.

US Code 343200.00(a)(b)(c) says that this behavior is unconstitutional and discriminatory.

I would suggest that the OP consult an attorney that specializes in civil litigation and pursue a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Class action even.

I believe you are misreading the fine print there, my dear Court Clerk. Scroll down about 15 pages.

§ NCC 1701 reads:

A private Enterprise may restrict smoking at their discretion provided signs are placed in public view. See Picard v. Quark.

 

[ecmst12]

There is plenty of evidence that smoking causes cancer in smokers.

There is also evidence that second hand smoke significantly increases the risk of cancer for people who spend a lot of time around it. Specifically, bartenders and servers who work in smoke-filled environments are significantly more likely to get cancer then those who work in smoke-free environments - and the additional risk applies EVEN TO THE ONES WHO SMOKE. I wish I had a citation for the study I read but that was the most convincing item for me when it comes to smoking bans.

I also love being able to go out to a bar and not come home reeking. After the ban in Philly went into effect, business owners noticed that it was actually good for business and now even places that aren't required to be smoke-free frequently are. Smokers are a minority after all.

 

[KmanStuck]

"can i bring a case against the federal or states governments for the non smoking bans they have impose on smokers years ago restaurants had to make non smoking sections or face civil lawsuits. isn't this a reverse-discrimination"

Discrimination generally regards something that you no choice in .. like age, sex, race, etc ... there are some exceptions but smoking is not one of them.

 

[KmanStuck]

There is no hard and fast evidence that smoking causes cancer, much less second hand smoke. The government has manipulated all related statistics to support the outcome that supports the government's position.

If the government out and out declared cigarettes illegal, then they'd have to find something else to tax exorbitantly to pay for Medicaid.

Anti-smoking sign from 1915 - Boing Boing

I think he is referring to this ... ??