• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

What about forcing your poison on your children at home? What about the pollution of this poison in parks where children are playing?
That is a different matter, that is one of parenting and child absuse. The parks example would depend whose property it is but I doubt whether secondhand smoke harm, if it exists at all, would be an issue in an open space.

Also, business ARE places of public access. In the US, the courts have LONG ruled that the government has the right to regulate these businesses, especially as it comes to substances that are potentially harmful.
Firstly the courts have often overode liberty and constitution, that is nothing new. But businesses are still private property and this is nothing secret and involuntary, those who come onto the property know what is in store for them. To ban it is to ban private property.

Yes, cigarette smoke IS pollution. It is poison. The government has a compelling interest. Look at the reduction of heart attacks in just three years in this one community. The health benefits alone are a compelling interest for the government to step in.
As far as I know however it is not poison to anyone outside the limited area it is being done, if that. If you are informed then it is your choice, we should not allow the rights of property holders to be overridden.

Personally, I think tobacco should be banned. The behavior of cigarette smokers is abmoninable.
Right...
 
No blacks? No Irish? No Catholics?

Are you aware of the official social teaching of the Catholic church? Or what is called Disttributism and the importance its places on private property well dispersed? Have you read the works of G.K.Chesterton or Hilaire Belloc? I suggest you check them out.

The ChesterBelloc Mandate

Personally I'm far closer to them than the usual libertarians who blindly claim all property is basically sovereign. But we need to preserve and protect private property still.
 
That is a different matter, that is one of parenting and child absuse. The parks example would depend whose property it is but I doubt whether secondhand smoke harm, if it exists at all, would be an issue in an open space.

Nearly all parks (at least where I live) are completely public. Sorry, but if you are sitting next to me and my children and light up, I can smell that poison. That is causing me, and more importantly, my children, harm. No one has the right to do that.

Firstly the courts have often overode liberty and constitution, that is nothing new. But businesses are still private property and this is nothing secret and involuntary, those who come onto the property know what is in store for them. To ban it is to ban private property.

Please tell me what part of the Constitution is being violated by LOCAL restrictions on smoking in places of public access and which courts have upheld this opinion?

As far as I know however it is not poison to anyone outside the limited area it is being done, if that. If you are informed then it is your choice, we should not allow the rights of property holders to be overridden.

If I can smell it, it is poisonous.
 
Same legal principle at work.

Not even close. You cannot choose your race.

Nope, advocating the case for the government to tell you what you can not pollute the air people breathe with.

It is private property if you don't like it you can leave.

Business owners CHOOSE to make their "private property" a place of public access which the government has a compelling interest to regulate.

The business does make a contract to submit to a level of standards and practices as dictated by the state. But the government should only have limited rights.

I guess personal responsibility for ones own actions is to much to ask?

Do you think you have the right to pollute the air your children breathe at home and in your car?

In my home or car? Damn skippy.

It again boils down to personal responsibility.
 
Smoking is legal, so it should be allowed wherever the property owner thinks is appropriate.

So is sex. Would that apply? Of course not because we assume that it would be offensive to the general public.

And we assume that smoking in public is bad because Environmental Smoke from the tobacco/cannabis IS dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Are you aware of the official social teaching of the Catholic church? Or what is called Disttributism and the importance its places on private property well dispersed? Have you read the works of G.K.Chesterton or Hilaire Belloc? I suggest you check them out.

The ChesterBelloc Mandate

Personally I'm far closer to them than the usual libertarians who blindly claim all property is basically sovereign. But we need to preserve and protect private property still.

You are going to use a BLOG entry as evidence to the social teachings of the Catholic Church to defend the speading of POISON?:rofl:rofl

You want private property? Don't make it public access, and don't have children.
 
Nearly all parks (at least where I live) are completely public. Sorry, but if you are sitting next to me and my children and light up, I can smell that poison. That is causing me, and more importantly, my children, harm. No one has the right to do that.
That is a different matter if it is actually owned by the public.



Please tell me what part of the Constitution is being violated by LOCAL restrictions on smoking in places of public access and which courts have upheld this opinion?
The right to private property.
 
Not even close. You cannot choose your race.

But the legal principle is the same.

It is private property if you don't like it you can leave.

Don't make it public access. I suppose that means the private business owner can violate public health laws as well - because the diner can simply leave. :rofl

The business does make a contract to submit to a level of standards and practices as dictated by the state. But the government should only have limited rights.

And keeping the workplace and place of public access free of a known toxin is NOT an example of the state overreaching its bounds.

I guess personal responsibility for ones own actions is to much to ask?

Sadly, many smokers wouldnt know the phrase "personal responsibility" if it smacked them flat on the forehead.

In my home or car? Damn skippy.

It again boils down to personal responsibility.

Children have the right to grow up in a smoke-free environment.
 
That is a different matter if it is actually owned by the public.

How many parks are NOT owned by the public?

The right to private property.

The right to private property is NOT absolute - not even in the US and definately not in the country where I live.
 
You are going to use a BLOG entry as evidence to the social teachings of the Catholic Church to defend the speading of POISON?:rofl:rofl
What? I was trying to show you what the social teaching of the Catholic church was. Do you deny that Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno are the basis of Catholic social teaching and that Distributism was built on these?

I was showing you the whole blog, it is very interesting.

The ChesterBelloc Mandate: Rerum Novarum

What stands out and excels in us, what makes man man and distinguishes him generically from the brute, is the mind and reason. And owing to the fact that this animal alone has reason, it is necessary that man have goods not only to be used, which is common to all living things, but also to be possessed by stable and perpetual right; and this applies not merely to those goods which are consumed by use, but to those also which endure after being used.

Leo XIII

The ChesterBelloc Mandate: <em>Quadragesimo Anno</em>


The right of property is distinct from its use.[30] That justice called commutative commands sacred respect for the division of possessions and forbids invasion of others' rights through the exceeding of the limits of one's own property; but the duty of owners to use their property only in a right way does not come under this type of justice, but under other virtues, obligations of which "cannot be enforced by legal action."[31] Therefore, they are in error who assert that ownership and its right use are limited by the same boundaries; and it is much farther still from the truth to hold that a right to property is destroyed or lost by reason of abuse or non-use.
Pius XI

You want private property? Don't make it public access, and don't have children.
There is no reason why public access should override the rights of private property is this instance as access is only given to
 
How many parks are NOT owned by the public?
I don't see your point. I'm not saying that public property can't have these bans.


The right to private property is NOT absolute - not even in the US and definately not in the country where I live.
Of course it isn't absolute but it is a good and necessary thing and your ban is way beyond any reasonable limits on private property and goes bascially to destroy it. Remember this action is not in isolation and can be used as a jumping point to over abuses. If people know it is a smoking area then they have the choice not to go, it is that simple, anything else is an invasion of private property.
 
The article in the OP is compelling, but, for me, not compelling enough to rationalize outright criminilization. Information about cigarettes and tobacco is freely available in this country, if sometimes difficult to remove from partisan agendas. If you enter another's property, whether that is a business or a home, it is typically apparent if it is a place where one can smoke. Considering this, I can't reconcile criminilization of tobacco use. For the most part, it can only harm you if you knowingly choose to use it or put yourself adjacent to it, even assuming the power of second-hand smoke.

I will say this: Businesses should be required to make apparent to all their patrons, through clear, concise, obvious terms, if smoking is allowed on their premises; such as a conspicuous sign on the entrance. This is not an unreasonable request, and many businesses already meet it. Assuming this, any citizen would have effectively perfect information, to the degree that it is feasible, on where they may possibly be exposed to second-hand smoke.

P.S.: It's only fair that you guys know that I am light smoker.
 
But the legal principle is the same.

No it is not. Comparing discrimination by race to smoking is nothing but a red herring.

Don't make it public access. I suppose that means the private business owner can violate public health laws as well - because the diner can simply leave. :rofl

How long would they be in business if this were the case? With or without government intervention?

The market would correct itself.

And keeping the workplace and place of public access free of a known toxin is NOT an example of the state overreaching its bounds.

The government disagrees...

A federal court has taken a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's science on secondhand smoke and called it junk

COURT RULES AGAINST EPA ON SECONDHAND SMOKE

I noticed you ignored my other post...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057869526-post41.html


Sadly, many smokers wouldnt know the phrase "personal responsibility" if it smacked them flat on the forehead.

And many do. We should not punish everyone for the actions of others.

Children have the right to grow up in a smoke-free environment.

I am so sick of hearing "It is for the children!" Every time someone wants to pass something into law that takes away just one more of our libertys it's the same mantra. :roll:
 
Last edited:
There is no reason why public access should override the rights of private property is this instance as access is only given to

Acess is only given to whom? Sorry, courts have regularly ruled against this notion. And yes, the issue of race IS relevant here because it was the issue of race that opened up the courts to this issue in the 1960s, linking it to the rights of the government under the interstate commerce clause. Governments DO have legitimate interests. No property is ABSOLUTELY private. You can not do anything you want on your property, even if it is NOT public access.
 
I don't see your point. I'm not saying that public property can't have these bans.

OK, at least on this point, we are in agreement


Of course it isn't absolute but it is a good and necessary thing and your ban is way beyond any reasonable limits on private property and goes bascially to destroy it. Remember this action is not in isolation and can be used as a jumping point to over abuses. If people know it is a smoking area then they have the choice not to go, it is that simple, anything else is an invasion of private property.

I disagree. Placing limits in poison in a place of public access and accommodation IS a reasonable limit. I am frankly SICK AND TIRED of the tyranny of the smokers of the world, who make up a minority. Frankly, we are striking back. If you don't like it, go to your home, have no children, and smoke there. Otherwise, watch it. We are coming. No more will we tolerate your POISON!
 
Acess is only given to whom? Sorry, courts have regularly ruled against this notion. And yes, the issue of race IS relevant here because it was the issue of race that opened up the courts to this issue in the 1960s, linking it to the rights of the government under the interstate commerce clause. Governments DO have legitimate interests. No property is ABSOLUTELY private. You can not do anything you want on your property, even if it is NOT public access.
No one is saying this. What we are saying is that there is still private property and this ban goes well beyond the reasonable limitations to private property and basically destroys it because it stops you allowing smoking on your property when you make those given access to it fully aware of this fact.

Btw quoting judicial activism is not a good case for the constitutionality of the argument.
 
Just waiting for those who defend the forcing of poison on others to show up in this thread.

You must realize that these men are not too bright, poorly educated, poorly reared; but they do not deliberately force any poison .....They simply knew no better.... And a short 50 years ago, most Americans were like this....

Also, don't we have legs ???
Its a very imperfect world in which we live...:2razz:
Maybe today's people are smarter (or think they are smarter), or, which is closer to the truth, they will do that they think is the "in" thing, just like their parents and grandparents did..
Neither are good, a Nazi or someone who blows smoke.
So, my"defense" of the smoker is that they are "sheeple" and that they cannot think as well as I... ..And I did, 40 years ago, smoke,about 2 or 3 packs.., and like Bill Clinton, I never inhaled..
 
I disagree. Placing limits in poison in a place of public access and accommodation IS a reasonable limit. I am frankly SICK AND TIRED of the tyranny of the smokers of the world, who make up a minority. Frankly, we are striking back. If you don't like it, go to your home, have no children, and smoke there. Otherwise, watch it. We are coming. No more will we tolerate your POISON!
You are completely unreasonable and destroying private property, you are actually trying to say people can't choose to go into a place they know smoking will take place. If you can't put up with people allowing smoking on thier private property then that is your problem, don't use the tyranny of the state to try and force this collectivism on them and destroy private property.

To quote PiusXI:

"no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist"
 
Last edited:
No it is not. Comparing discrimination by race to smoking is nothing but a red herring.

I was only comparing the legal principle involved. Another poster said that the business could admit anyone they pleased. Asking if that means can they limit access based on race, ethnicity, etc. is a valid question.

How long would they be in business if this were the case? With or without government intervention?

Don't know? I have seen some pretty dirty places stay in business for a long time.

The government disagrees...

It is hardly unanimous.

A federal court has taken a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's science on secondhand smoke and called it junk

So, the judges are scientists now? The body of scientific evidence relating to the dangers of second hand smoke continues to grow.

And many do. We should not punish everyone for the actions of others.

But you are willing to tolerate the production of poison into the air.

I am so sick of hearing "It is for the children!" Every time someone wants to pass something into law that takes away just one more of our libertys it's the same mantra. :roll:

Second-hand smoke is a known cause of many childhood health problems. Children have the right to live in a home that is smoke-free.
 
ACS :: Secondhand Smoke

Secondhand Smoke: Questions and Answers - National Cancer Institute

Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5).

WHO | 10 facts about tobacco and second-hand smoke

Second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous to health. It causes cancer, heart disease and many other serious diseases in adults. Almost half of the world's children breathe air polluted by tobacco smoke, which worsens their asthma conditions and causes dangerous diseases. At least 200 000 workers die every year due to exposure to second-hand smoke at work.

MedlinePlus: Secondhand Smoke

There is no safe amount of secondhand smoke. Children, pregnant women, older people and people with heart or breathing problems should be especially careful.
 
I was only comparing the legal principle involved. Another poster said that the business could admit anyone they pleased. Asking if that means can they limit access based on race, ethnicity, etc. is a valid question.

Hmmm... OK I agree it most definitely is valid. But it is also guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

Don't know? I have seen some pretty dirty places stay in business for a long time.

I agree and people can choose for themselves to go to the establishment or not.

It is hardly unanimous.

Simple capitalist thinking, and it works.

So, the judges are scientists now? The body of scientific evidence relating to the dangers of second hand smoke continues to grow.

No. But like you or I they can evaluate the evidence.

But you are willing to tolerate the production of poison into the air.

That would depend. You willing to give up your car for the sake of clean air?

Second-hand smoke is a known cause of many childhood health problems. Children have the right to live in a home that is smoke-free.

No it does not directly cause anything, but it can contribute to pre-existing conditions.

Children have the right to be in a world that is pollution free. That ain't going to happen until we give up factory's, cars, energy etc.
 
Hmmm... OK I agree it most definitely is valid. But it is also guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

I agree and people can choose for themselves to go to the establishment or not.

And the government has a public interest to make establishments as safe as possible.

Simple capitalist thinking, and it works.

Surely even you don't think 100% capitalism is effective. That was done away with 200 years ago.

No. But like you or I they can evaluate the evidence.

I think medical organizations can evaulate that evidence a little better than unelected judges can.

That would depend. You willing to give up your car for the sake of clean air?

You are talking to a cycle commuter. I strongly favor much higher standards on automotive emmissions.

No it does not directly cause anything, but it can contribute to pre-existing conditions.

Even if that first statement were true, and it isn't according to many researchers, the fact that it could exaccerbate pre-existing conditions is reason enough for concern.

Children have the right to be in a world that is pollution free. That ain't going to happen until we give up factory's, cars, energy etc.

Here, I am talking about a home free of a known cancer-causing poison.
 
WHO | 10 facts about tobacco and second-hand smoke

World health caught lying again...

PASSIVE SMOKING DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER - OFFICIAL

FORCES - EVIDENCE - PASSIVE SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER - OFFICIAL

Based on the lack of scientific evidence, there is no conclusive data which says secondhand smoke causes cancer.

Does Secondhand Smoke Really Cause Cancer?

Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer

Smoking does not cause lung cancer, WHO 1999 statistics. Editorial from the Journal of Theoretics
 
Back
Top Bottom