Originally posted by vansmack:a motivated libertarian may argue otherwise … unfortunately, i'm neither motivated nor a libertarian
Unless they've changed the Constitution without me noticing, there is nothing on that web site that will convince me that there is a right to smoke in any public place
Non-smoking shows
Jesus rides beside me
He never buys any smokes
Hurry up, hurry up, ain't you had enough of this stuff
Ashtray floors, dirty clothes, and filthy jokes
He never buys any smokes
Hurry up, hurry up, ain't you had enough of this stuff
Ashtray floors, dirty clothes, and filthy jokes
Originally posted by Maf54:There is no 'right' to smoke.
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:<img src="http://www.punknews.org/images/bands/replacements.jpg" alt=" - " />
I don't actually smoke, but I still support people's right to smoke in a rock club.
Originally posted by RatBastard:Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion … man
There is no 'right' to smoke.
<img src="http://cuboidal.org/movies/scenes/biglebowski/images/3-dudeoncouch.jpg" alt=" - " />
one could definitely make a constitutional argument for it, whether it would be accepted (doubtful) is up to a judge, but it wouldn't be much more tenuous than the "penumbra" of implied privacy rights that courts have found
Originally posted by HoyaSaxa08:Its a fact.
Originally posted by RatBastard:Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion … man
There is no 'right' to smoke.
<img src="http://cuboidal.org/movies/scenes/biglebowski/images/3-dudeoncouch.jpg" alt=" - " />
one could definitely make a constitutional argument for it, whether it would be accepted (doubtful) is up to a judge, but it wouldn't be much more tenuous than the "penumbra" of implied privacy rights that courts have found
Originally posted by vansmack:Cigarettes are legal. Sorry.
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:Do you often make up rights that don't exist in any codified form anywhere?
I don't actually smoke, but I still support people's right to smoke in a rock club.
And yes, they are making it illegal to smoke in many types of places, but where it's allowed, it's legal. Doesn't that make it a right?
I'm fine with the ban. Luckily I'll probably stop smoking entirely once it goes in to effect (as I only smoke intermittently, based on a combination of booze and folks smoking around me).
Originally posted by Bags:Driving a car is legal. Does that mean I can drive anywhere in any direction at any speed and without regard to those around me? Don't I have the right to do so?
Cigarettes are legal. Sorry.
And yes, they are making it illegal to smoke in many types of places, but where it's allowed, it's legal. Doesn't that make it a right?
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:well, driving a car is only legal if you have passed the required tests as set up by the state to receive your license to drive, which also is a tacit understanding that you will follow the rules as set up by the state- a compact of sorts. whereas for smoking, the only requirement is that you be 18 years old.
Driving a car is legal. Does that mean I can drive anywhere in any direction at any speed and without regard to those around me? Don't I have the right to do so?
now, that doesn't mean you can't do whatever you want with your car, but i doubt you'd be long for this world, not to mention you'd probably have quite a hefty insurance bill.
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:A lot of drivers in this area seem to think so.
Driving a car is legal. Does that mean I can drive anywhere in any direction at any speed and without regard to those around me? Don't I have the right to do so? [/QB]
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:nifty analogy , but you failed to make a point.
Originally posted by Bags:Driving a car is legal. Does that mean I can drive anywhere in any direction at any speed and without regard to those around me? Don't I have the right to do so?
Cigarettes are legal. Sorry.
And yes, they are making it illegal to smoke in many types of places, but where it's allowed, it's legal. Doesn't that make it a right?
you cant drive your car like that because its NOT legal.
and besides werent we all taught that driving was a privilege, not a right!
Originally posted by RatBastard:there is a right to decide whether to allow or ban smoking in your business, isnt there?
Originally posted by Maf54:There is no 'right' to smoke.
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:<img src="http://www.punknews.org/images/bands/replacements.jpg" alt=" - " />
I don't actually smoke, but I still support people's right to smoke in a rock club.
no, but there should be!
Originally posted by vansmack:dont they ask your permission before changing the constitution smackie? ;)
Originally posted by Maf54:Unless they've changed the Constitution without me noticing, there is nothing on that web site that will convince me that there is a right to smoke in any public place (and I adimantly refuse to sign up for that web site, but feel free to share with me any of the pearls of wisdom brought to you by the good people at RJ Reynolds).
the good people at RJ Reynolds have conveniently codified our rights!
https://mysmokersrights.rjrt.com/
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:Precisely. Which is why I do NOT oppose the ban. I never said I had a right to smoke anywhere I want at anytime. But where it is allowed (like the 9:30 Club and Black Cat), it is allowed, and I will do so if I like.
Originally posted by Bags:Driving a car is legal. Does that mean I can drive anywhere in any direction at any speed and without regard to those around me? Don't I have the right to do so?
Cigarettes are legal. Sorry.
And yes, they are making it illegal to smoke in many types of places, but where it's allowed, it's legal. Doesn't that make it a right?
As is common, you mixed apples and oranges based on my statement.
A right is usually something granted by the Constitution. There are certain other Human Rights we are afforded by our admission to the United Nations.
Statutes grant privileges, and those prvilieges cannot infringe on any rights granted by a Constitution.
The Constitution says nothing about your ability to smoke, and neither Due Process nor Equal Protection are afforded to smokers as smokers are not considered a protected class. If anything protects smokers, it's, ironically, the right to privacy, and that is not being infringed on here - you have the right to smoke in your home if you so choose.
The same statute that once granted smokers the priviledge to smoke in public places has been revoked in some areas. If smokers want to be granted that priviledge again, go through the processes and change the laws, but stop arguing that smokers have a right to smoke in public, because they do not.
Statutes grant privileges, and those prvilieges cannot infringe on any rights granted by a Constitution.
The Constitution says nothing about your ability to smoke, and neither Due Process nor Equal Protection are afforded to smokers as smokers are not considered a protected class. If anything protects smokers, it's, ironically, the right to privacy, and that is not being infringed on here - you have the right to smoke in your home if you so choose.
The same statute that once granted smokers the priviledge to smoke in public places has been revoked in some areas. If smokers want to be granted that priviledge again, go through the processes and change the laws, but stop arguing that smokers have a right to smoke in public, because they do not.
Originally posted by le sonick:They certainly do, every two years, first Tuesday in November.
dont they ask your permission before changing the constitution smackie? ;)
Originally posted by Maf54:Thank you.
jaguar, any rational person definitely understands your complaints, being allergic to smoke would really suck
i think thingsfallaparts' comments were just tied to the fact that we're talking about a RAWK club, not a bridge party … booze, cigarettes, and a general fuck-all attitude are pretty intricately tied up in RAWKing
Originally posted by Bags:Are you hot?
I only smoke intermittently, based on a combination of booze and folks smoking around me).
Originally posted by vansmack:Haha I'd like to know where you received your law degree from.
A right is usually something granted by the Constitution. There are certain other Human Rights we are afforded by our admission to the United Nations.
Statutes grant privileges, and those prvilieges cannot infringe on any rights granted by a Constitution.
The Constitution says nothing about your ability to smoke, and neither Due Process nor Equal Protection are afforded to smokers as smokers are not considered a protected class. If anything protects smokers, it's, ironically, the right to privacy, and that is not being infringed on here - you have the right to smoke in your home if you so choose.
The same statute that once granted smokers the priviledge to smoke in public places has been revoked in some areas. If smokers want to be granted that priviledge again, go through the processes and change the laws, but stop arguing that smokers have a right to smoke in public, because they do not.
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:Wikipedia, why? It doesn't require a law degree to understand the basic knowledge of what constitutes a right in the United States.
Haha I'd like to know where you received your law degree from.
Originally posted by vansmack:True. But I think it's worth noting that, on a strictly technical level, rights in this country are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to the Constitution, not from the actual Constitution itself, which is essentially a blueprint for the layout of our government. The point is, right now it is legal to smoke in the 9:30–therefore I have the right to smoke there. Anyone, at this point in time, who would tell me to put out my cigarette (well not mine, but those of patrons who do smoke) would be infringing on my rights.
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:Wikipedia, why? It doesn't require a law degree to understand the basic knowledge of what constitutes a right in the United States.
Haha I'd like to know where you received your law degree from.