As noted in the opinion, indoor smoking bans are a no brainer, but the question presented to the District and Appeals Court was, is an outdoor smoking ban permissable under the Constitution?
Answer, YES.
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/12/11/113880P.pdf
I would think this is a no-brainer. Property rights are property rights, for the most part. It doesn’t matter if their are buildings on the property or not. No smoking on government property, period. Completely legal.
I’m kind of surprised it made it that far up the court system. While I think laws making it illegal to smoke at a public park to be silly I don’t see how anyone could have thought they were unconstitutional.
It’s already illegal to inflict other kinds of harm on people on government property, why should smoking be different?
This is my thought as well – nonsmoker for 12 years or so, but plenty of random people I meet and even a few friends smoke. It’s normal enough to me, in other words.
Unconstitutional? I think some of these litigants might have been “heads,” if you know what I mean. Obviously it’s absurd to suggest a health hazard when in, say, an environment which allows fossil fuel-burning automobiles to operate close to people, because of, you know, chemistry. But unconstutional reminds me of those people who used to circulate petitions for smokers’ rights – wingnuts.
Here in Iowa, a law was passed that banned smoking in public places and I believe on govt (city, state, etc.) property. Well, that created the interesting issue of public housing having a smoking ban. You can rent a house from the housing authority, but cannot smoke on the property. You literally can’t smoke in your own home!
The issue is that government property isn’t legally the same as private property.
You don’t want to know what a headache it was to enforce this in prisons.