_ prof. jonez _

WHY THERE IS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO SMOKE

There is no legal or moral right to smoke tobacco, any more than there is a
legal or moral right to chew and spit tobacco (the closest analogy) or to burn
incense (another close analogy), not only in public places including outdoor
areas, but even within the confines of a private car or residence.

In sharp contrast, the right not to be harmed by another – including not being
involuntarily subjected to toxic substances proven to cause lung cancer and to
trigger sometimes-fatal heart attacks – is one of the most fundamental rights
people possess; one which goes back hundreds of years to the common law of
England, and one which is found in virtually all of the world’s legal systems.
[1]

Thus there is no legal problem with prohibiting smoking in any public or private
place. There is also no need to accommodate smokers by providing smoking
sections (any more than there is a need to provide chewing and spitting
sections, or a place where incense can be burned). Finally, there is no need to
balance the rights of nonsmokers against any so-called “rights” of smokers.

Similarly, the owners or operators of businesses or other public places have no
right to unilaterally decide to subject workers or visitors to totally
unnecessary risks [2] from dangerous chemicals. Corporations may not
unilaterally decide to have offices where asbestos (or any other proven
carcinogen) is in the air, and restaurant operators may not announce that
patrons may bring in dogs or cats, go shoeless or shirtless, etc., even if they
post an appropriate sign announcing this policy on their doors.

Courts and legislators have uniformly rejected the idea that there is any
inherent legal right to smoke [3] – even in the home. For example, in literally
thousands of divorce cases, parents have been forced to sign agreements
promising not to smoke in the presence of their children, and the courts’
decisions to impose such orders – or even to remove the children from a smoking
parent’s custody – have been repeatedly upheld. [4]

Indeed, it appears that in almost 30 states [5] – smoking has been recognized as
a factor in custody decisions, and parents have been prohibited from smoking in
their own homes around children and/or have lost custody for doing so; a clear
indication that there is no legal right to smoke, even in one’s own private
home, in those jurisdictions. Moreover, almost a dozen states have prohibited
smoking around foster children and many more are planning to do so. [6] Indeed,
several states have gone even further, and have banned smoking when children are
present in cars. [7]

Likewise, courts are now beginning to hold that smoking in a private apartment
is not protected if the smoke adversely affects others (e.g., if it drifts or
re-circulates into another apartment) [8] and numerous apartment buildings,
college dormitories, nursing homes, and other residences have banned smoking
even over the objections of smokers who may not have much choice to live
elsewhere. Even in this related context, it is becoming clear that there is no
right to smoke, even in one’s own home.

In short, if one adds the number of states which have banned smoking around
children involved in custody disputes to the number which have or are about to
ban smoking in private homes where foster children reside, far more than half
the states – containing much more than half the U.S. population – have concluded
that there is no inherent right to smoke, even in one’s own home.

Thus legislative bodies, regulatory agencies, and courts may legally ban smoking
wherever necessary, whether to protect the public from the known health hazards
of toxic tobacco smoke, and/or simply to protect the public from annoyance (as
we frequently ban the playing of loud music in public places as well as private
homes), litter, to reduce fire hazards, or simply to protect children from
being adversely affected (as we ban consumption of alcoholic beverages and
gambling in public places).

NOTES

[1] It is important to distinguish, from a public health point of view, between
risks which are necessary and those which are not. No government can totally
eliminate the risks caused to citizens by breathing air which is polluted by
gases like carbon monoxide or by small particles since these are an unavoidable
byproduct of our modern transportation systems, power plants, etc. Moreover,
the activities which create these risks – like gasoline engines, diesel engines,
coal and oil power plants, etc. – benefit all citizens, and therefore it is not
unreasonable to expect all citizens to share that portion of the small risk
which cannot feasibly be eliminated.
In sharp contrast, the deadly dangers and physical irritation from secondhand
tobacco smoke can easily and feasibly be reduced completely to zero simply by
prohibiting smoking (or at least smoking where the smoke can affect others).
Moreover, since the overwhelming majority of people derive no benefits
whatsoever from smoking, there can be no logical argument that they should have
to share the risk as they must from automobiles, factories, etc.

[2] As noted above, it is important and necessary to distinguish between risks
to which employees and even visitors are subjected which are virtually
unavoidable, and those which are totally unnecessary.
Many occupations – e.g., policing, fire fighting, construction, etc. – have
inherent risks, and even cooks, waiters, and office workers face some risks
which cannot be avoided – at least at any reasonable cost.
Many factories and other workplaces necessarily subject some workers and
visitors to breathing chemicals which may be dangerous, but only because the
level of exposure cannot be reduced to zero at our current level of technology.
In any event, states and local jurisdictions have regulated hazards --
including exposure to dangerous substances and conditions -- for many years, as
has the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Thus no one can
seriously argue today that an owner or operator of a factory, business, store,
restaurant, or other establishment is free to subject its workers and/or
visitors/customers to whatever hazards and substances it desires -- whether or
not an advisory sign is posted.
To see the fallacy of the argument that a business such as a restaurant can
permit tobacco smoke in the air, simply substitute the words "asbestos" or
"benzene" or "polonium" -- all of which are know human carcinogens, as is
tobacco smoke.

[3] See, e.g.,:
Grusendorf v. City of Oklahoma City, 816 F.2d 539 (10th Cir.1987) (no right of
employee to smoke, even off the job);
City of North Miami, v. Kurtz, 653 So.2d 1025 (1995) (same);
Washington v. Tinsley, 809 F.2d 504 (S. Dis. TX 1992) (no right to smoke in
jail, including those who are innocent and awaiting trial);
Diefenthal v. CAB, 681 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1982) (on airplanes, despite
constitutional right to travel);
NYC C.L.A.S.H. v City of New York, 315 F. Supp. 2d 46 (S.D. NY 2004) (no right
to smoke associated with First Amendment);
The Players, Inc. v. City of New York, 371 F. Supp. 2d 522 (S.D. NY 2005) (no
"fundamental" constitutional right to smoke tobacco).

[4] See generally, NO SMOKING AROUND CHILDREN: Judge William F. Chinnock, The
Family Courts’ Mandatory Duty to Restrain Parents and Other Persons From Smoking
Around Children, 45 Ariz. L. Rev. 801 (1993). This article may be downloaded in
its entirety from:
http://www.law.arizona.edu/Journals/...3/Chinnock.pdf.

[5] These states include Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

[6] These include Alaska, Arizona, many counties in California, Florida (under
consideration), Maine, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Vermont,
Virginia, and Washington.

[7] For example, Arkansas House Bill 1046A bans smoking in cars when children
under 6 years of age are present. Louisiana House Bill 1010 bans smoking in
cars transporting children under 13. Bangor Maine adopted a city ordinance
which makes it a primary offense to smoke in a car when children under 18 are
present. Proposed bans are being considered in Connecticut and Rockland County,
NY.

[8] See, e.g.:
Donath v. Dadah, No. 91-CV179 (Worcester Cty., MA, Housing Court Dept. 1991);
Fox Point Apt. v. Kippes, No. 92-6924, (Lackamas County (OR) Dist. Ct. 1992);
Snow v. Gilbert, Middlesex Cty., Docket No. MICV94-07373 (MA Sup. Ct. 1994);
Pentony v. Conrad et al., (NJ Sup. Ct. 1994);
Dworkin v. Paley, 638 N.E.2d 636 (93 Ohio App. 3d 1994);
Layon v. Jolley, Case No. NS004483 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. 1996;
50-58 Gainsborough St. Realty Trust v. Haile, No. 98-02279 (Boston Housing Ct.
1998);
see, generally, Ezra, Get Your Ashes out of my Living Room!: Controlling Tobacco
Smoke in Multi-Unit Residential Housing, 54 Rutgers L. Rev. 135 (2001).


How Deadly is Tobacco Smoke?

The U.S. Surgeon General has just conclusively demonstrated and
authoritatively reported, based upon the most comprehensive study of the issue
ever undertaken, that:

¦ “The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere
annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature
death in children and nonsmoking adults. [Secondhand tobacco smoke] is a known
cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear
infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children . . . because the bodies
of infants and children are still developing, they are especially vulnerable to
the poisons in secondhand smoke.”
¦“There is NO risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure, with even brief
exposure adversely affecting the cardiovascular and respiratory system. Only
smoke-free environments effectively protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke
exposure in indoor spaces.”

¦ “The consequences of smoke on a child’s respiratory system are more severe
than originally thought.
Acute respiratory infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia, respiratory
symptoms such as cough, phlegm, wheezing, and breathlessness, more frequent and
severe asthma attacks, slowing of lung growth, and ear infections have all been
proven to be results of exposure to secondhand smoke in children. . . .“
[W]e have determined that secondhand smoke is a cause of sudden infant death
syndrome (SIDS). . . . We have also found that infants who are exposed to
secondhand smoke after birth are also at increased risk of dying of SIDS.”

¦ “The agency [California EPA] also estimated that between 24,300 and 71,900
low birth weight or preterm deliveries, about 202,300 episodes of childhood
asthma (new cases and exacerbations), between 150,000 and 300,000 cases of lower
respiratory illness in children, and about 789,700 cases of middle ear
infections in children occur each year in the United States as a result of
exposure to secondhand smoke.” [emphasis added]

¦ Recently the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] further explained the reason
for the Surgeon General's warning that "there is no risk-free level of exposure
to secondhand smoke," since even brief exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke can
trigger cancer.
'There is some risk that even a very small amount [of secondhand smoke] can
damage a cell, setting off a chain reaction that causes cancer,” notes Terry
Pechacek associate director for science with the Office on Smoking and Health in
the CDC.

jack_mehough

Maybe not in your country but there is in the USA.

We have equal rights here,
With all public official sworn to uphold the constitution of the USA

This will be upcoming in the Supreme Court sooner or later.

You have no legal or moral right to continuously hammer this group
with your twisted logic and opinion.

Your actions are in violation of the gogle group rules and will
be reported each and every time your posts appear here.

Including this one will your full trolling record till they ban you.

You can try but I won't let you....

Jack Mehough

uuhhmm the bogie man

Really...that's too bad...I'm smoking right now....
There's nothing you can do about it.....

How stupid and feeble you are.

Another of your childish tantrums poop jonez

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

bull_schitzmeknot

"Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris.
We WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's
not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against.... We're after power
and we mean it .... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only
power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals one MAKES them. One
declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible
for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law
abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass
the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or
objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--
and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon,
that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier
to deal with." --Ayn Rand Look Familiar?
Subject: => Idiotic Knee-Jerk Reactionism - A Colorado Specialty
Message-ID: <U4aD6.3760$TK.347672@news.uswest.net>

Whatta Moron !

<snip mindless nonsense and angry reactionary palaver>

Silly, angry, frustrated troll. LOL!

warren f

Waaa, waaa, waaa. Go cry on your mommy's shoulder.

klc lewis

I, for one, will take great pleasure in your protests when it's YOUR ox
being gored.

cigar04654

I tought we was suposed to ignore these small minded commies?

_ prof. jonez _

If ass-sniffin' Skitzo Nitzo ignorerd the anti-public-smokers she'd
have no one to play with.

When anti-social Nitzo was a baby, her mother had to
tie a pork-chop around her neck just to get the dog to
play with her.

_ prof. jonez _

These obsessive-compulsive tobacco-sucking addicts lack
the discipline to ignore the posts they claim to disdain,
and they are obviously too stupid to configure a kill-file.

They are truly masochistic morons.