Is Marylands new smoking ban Constitutional?

[Larry Gude]

Further...

yes they are privatly owned, but they are not private.

Houses, yes, private
Cars, you have the expectation of privacy for all parts of the car not visible from the outside, i.e. trunk, glove box, console.

bicycles, you are operating in public, the only expectations of privacy you have are that the things you carry conceled on your person.

The Maryland Senate approved a statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants last night after days of negotiations on a compromise measure that dropped exemptions for private clubs.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/lo...0,7828965.story?coll=bal-mdpolitics-headlines

 

[Kyle]

No. They don't let everyone in. You should pay more attention. Ever see a biker try to wear their colors in Tiki? The owners chose to put that rule into place. They should also be allowed the luxury of choosing whether they let smokers into a bar.

I also know that the owner of Toot's bar will not let someone in who has proven to be a repeat offender by picking fights when they're in the bar, so that argument doesn't hold water.

Hmmm... Amusing thought...

It'd be great entertainment to watch Non-Smokers getting ejected from a bar/restaurant for not lighting-up.

 

[MMDad]

...in what level of regulation is beneficial and appropriate to promoting the general welfare. Not all apples are equal. It makes sense to regulate mercury and food quality because they could have a wide ranging negative impact. It is an appropriate arean for the awesome power of government.

It is absurd to FURTHER regulate smoking given the enormous strides that have been made in voluntarily and legislatively reducing smoking's impact on the general public which is absolutely negligible compared to bad meat and mercury poisoning.

You can't separate the apples based on size if you are talking a true constitutional test. Either the government has the power or not. If you agree that food restrictions are constitutional, then by default smoking restrictions are likewise constitutional.

I'm not saying I support the ban, or that it is a good thing. It just is not unconstitutional.

 

[Midnightrider]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/lo...0,7828965.story?coll=bal-mdpolitics-headlines

like i told elaine there blinky, that was obviouly recently changed, and in my opinion they have no athourity to regulate a private club.

 

[mAlice]

they have no athourity to regulate a private club.

Well, guess what!

 

[Larry Gude]

Hmmm...

You can't separate the apples based on size if you are talking a true constitutional test. Either the government has the power or not. If you agree that food restrictions are constitutional, then by default smoking restrictions are likewise constitutional.

I'm not saying I support the ban, or that it is a good thing. It just is not unconstitutional.

...let me try another angle. You're saying that, by default, if the government can be said to have the jurisdiction to regulate ANYTHING they therefore have the right to regulate everything, yes?

 

[vraiblonde]

The Fifth Amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This is where smoking bans are unconstitutional.

A bar/restaurant/club IS private property. End of story. You can argue that it's not, but it in fact IS. When the government enacts laws regulating YOUR private property, they are in effect taking it for public use without just compensation.

They may justify it by saying it's for the "public good", but there was a time that books such as "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" were banned for the public good. Many groups today advocating the banning of pornography for the public good.

So I will suggest that some little busybody who wants to ban ANYTHING for the public good is just a control freak with too much time on their hands, who should consider taking over a third-world nation to satisfy their desire for dictatorship.

 

[Midnightrider]

Well, guess what!

ok, for allyou idgits haveing a hard time understanding the differnce between a private club and a privately owned business, Clubs- memebers join, there is limited memebrshipm memebers and their guests are the only people allowed to enter. Privately owned businesses open there doors to the public making them subject to the laws of public domain.

 

[Larry Gude]

Why...

like i told elaine there blinky, that was obviouly recently changed, and in my opinion they have no athourity to regulate a private club.

...not? Are employees and patrons in a private club somehow immune to the dangers posed in a 'public' house?

What's your reasoning?

 

[vraiblonde]

blinky

There's no need for name-calling.

 

[vraiblonde]

idgits

My heavens! More name-calling!

This hypocrisy is why I had you on Ignore for so long.

 

[Midnightrider]

There's no need for name-calling.

isn't that what i said earlier

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

ok, for allyou idgits haveing a hard time understanding the differnce between a private club and a privately owned business, Clubs- memebers join, there is limited memebrshipm memebers and their guests are the only people allowed to enter. Privately owned businesses open there doors to the public making them subject to the laws of public domain.

...as an idjit, if I invite a whole bunch of people over to my house and don't require membership to my club, I am therefore subject to the public laws, whatever they are?

What if they are all forum members?

 

[Midnightrider]

My heavens! More name-calling!

This hypocrisy is why I had you on Ignore for so long.

please put me back......

 

[MMDad]

...let me try another angle. You're saying that, by default, if the government can be said to have the jurisdiction to regulate ANYTHING they therefore have the right to regulate everything, yes?

Constitutionally, yes. If we, through our legislatures and courts, decide that regulating private behavior for health reasons is constitutional, then yes, regulating anything for health reasons is likewise constitutional.

I am not saying it is right, appropriate, necessary, or even a good idea. I'm solely talking about a constitutional argument because that is what the original question in this thread was.

 

[Larry Gude]

And I only called...

My heavens! More name-calling!

This hypocrisy is why I had you on Ignore for so long.

...him 'Mr. Tedious' which is, I think, far more respectful than lower case 'idjit'.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes...

Constitutionally, yes. If we, through our legislatures and courts, decide that regulating private behavior for health reasons is constitutional, then yes, regulating anything for health reasons is likewise constitutional.

I am not saying it is right, appropriate, necessary, or even a good idea. I'm solely talking about a constitutional argument because that is what the original question in this thread was.

...and that's what we're arguing; the Constitutionality of government regulating a legal activity on private property.

Smoking IS legal. As is drinking alcohol and eating cheeseburgers, loud music and bad perfume.

 

[Midnightrider]

...as an idjit, if I invite a whole bunch of people over to my house and don't require membership to my club, I am therefore subject to the public laws, whatever they are?

What if they are all forum members?

Thats your home, so you would still have an expectation of privacy. Now if you start to charge people for food and alcohol, you would be subject to these laws.

 

[Larry Gude]

Why?

Thats your home, so you would still have an expectation of privacy. Now if you start to charge people for food and alcohol, you would be subject to these laws.

Please do tell, why?

So, if I charge my kids rent or take on a roomate, I am now subject?

 

[mAlice]

Thats your home, so you would still have an expectation of privacy. Now if you start to charge people for food and alcohol, you would be subject to these laws.

If I say BYOB and food, am I subject to these laws?