smokers rights

[nextwife]

When smokers find a way to make certain that ONLY they consume the legal product they are choosing, I'm fine with such bans being lifted. As of now, I don't know of any way for a smoker to choose to injest their product and not impose that consumption choice upon others around them.

If I consume a different legal product, like alchohol, no other party is forced to simultaneously consume it because of my choice.

 

[mdcsmoker]

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.

yes you are right that a private enterprise may choose non-smoking, but i am talking about federal and state governments banning smoking or any thing that is legal to do.

 

[mdcsmoker]

When smokers find a way to make certain that ONLY they consume the legal product they are choosing, I'm fine with such bans being lifted. As of now, I don't know of any way for a smoker to choose to injest their product and not impose that consumption choice upon others around them.

If I consume a different legal product, like alchohol, no other party is forced to simultaneously consume it because of my choice.

not true, if you consume alcohol and decided to make decision and commit a crime or driving, assault, or any thing against the public then we are affected by your choice of consuming a legal substance, and yes there is a way were smokers can smoke and not past it to others is non smoking people don't go were smoking is be done

 

[mdcsmoker]

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.

the only reason i but reverse discrimination in is because back in the late 70 early 80 laws were put in place to mandate non-smoking section even though owners didn't want to do this

 

[mdcsmoker]

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.

you don't need to go to places that allows smoking, that is the right you have, no one tells a non-smoker they have to parentage a place that allows smoking. Let's take this to alcohol, I had a family killed by a drunk, why isn't alcohol banned. They did have a choice,

 

[mdcsmoker]

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.

Thank you for the U S Code. at least now i have some thing to present to a lawyer.

 

[nextwife]

When smokers find a way to make certain that ONLY they consume the legal product they are choosing, I'm fine with such bans being lifted. As of now, I don't know of any way for a smoker to choose to injest their product and not impose that consumption choice upon others around them.

If I consume a different legal product, like alchohol, no other party is forced to simultaneously consume it because of my choice.

not true, if you consume alcohol and decided to make decision and commit a crime or driving, assault, or any thing against the public then we are affected by your choice of consuming a legal substance, and yes there is a way were smokers can smoke and not past it to others is non smoking people don't go were smoking is be done

It IS true that one can consume alchohol moderately, not drive impaired (such as using a designated driver, or only having a glass of wine with their meal) without imposing the CONSUMPTION OF THAT PRODUCT ON OTHERS AROUND ME. If I choose merely to drink a drink while out, I am NOT forcing anyone else to simultaneously consume it. This is what makes cigarette consumption different from other legal products: the party who chooses to consume it is choosing that others must consume it too, whether they wish or not.

Of course COMMITTING A CRIME, IMPAIRED OR NOT, can affect others. One can consume alchohol (I had a Bloody Mary while out for dinner Friday Night, and no vehicle or personal crimes resulted) and not commit a crime, such as driving impaired or robbing someone!

 

[ecmst12]

You don't have to go places that don't allow smoking. Stay home, no one else wants to smell your stinky self anyway.

 

[Proserpina]

Thank you for the U S Code. at least now i have some thing to present to a lawyer.

yes you are right that a private enterprise may choose non-smoking, but i am talking about federal and state governments banning smoking or any thing that is legal to do.

Please let us know what happens.

 

[CreativeBlock]

First of all, I'm going to admit that I am a filthy, disgusting smoker. I don't smoke around my children, non-smoking friends, strangers, etc. Nor do I smoke inside the house at all. I have my own little smoking area far away from others.

Second of all, in my county (Bay) of FL, enacting a smoking ban in public places and restaurants was put to the citizenry for a vote. Passing the smoking ban won (and in fact, I myself voted in favor of it ~ I don't feel I have the right to impose on others my habits ~ but perhaps, that's just me) by pretty much a landslide.

So, I can't speak for state-wide or Federal bans, but I can tell you that in our county, it was a decision made by the majority. The same majority that decides on which politicians are elected to office. So, if voters can decide who to elect to office, I say it's not that much of a stretch to allow them to vote on whether or not a smoking ban should be enacted.

However, I would not support a smoking ban as I've heard of in other areas ~ where you can't even smoke on your own property.

 

[Dillon]

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.

one might feel they were born with the smoking gene and they have no choice in the matter.

Can't wrong behavior be considered Right?

 

[Isis1]

i feel i was born with the smoking gene and i feel i have no choice in the matter.

It's a good thing how you feel, doesn't matter.

 

[Dillon]

It's a good thing how you feel, doesn't matter.

if one cant prove that there isn't a gene that make one smoke, then it must be so, Right?

can one be born that way?

 

[Proserpina]

if you cant prove i dont have a gene that make me smoke, sorry for you?

one knows if one was born that way?


why wont you believe me?

Please tell us which gene is responsible for you (or anyone else) smoking.

The burden of proof is on you.

 

[cbg]

one might feel they were born with the smoking gene and they have no choice in the matter.

Can't wrong behavior be considered Right?

1.) One might feel that way all they want but one still does not have a right to smoke in a posted non-smoking area or force someone else to breath one's smoke. You could possibly make the argument that they have no choice TO smoke, but not that they have no choice WHERE to smoke.

2.) No. Wrong behavior is, by definition, wrong.