# Property owners rights and smokers. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 20, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304 "2003-11-20T14:27:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2003, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/161 "2003-11-30T21:00:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > The difference, of course, is that the former situation arises out of the voluntary activity of market participants, while the latter arises out of one set of market participants imposing their preferences on everyone else by force of law. There’s that assumption again - that it is intrinsically superior to allow business owners to do whatever they like. I say it is not intrinsically preferable, and that you need to make the case as for why you believe it is. > [@](#): > > While I’m skeptical of the health justification, at least it is arguable. The “waaah, nonsmokers don’t have restaurants they can go to” argument is just beyond absurd. It’s like passing a law requiring that a only a certain percentage of summer movies can be big-budget action popcorn flicks. First of all, making mock “crying” noises does nothing to further your argument. I could just as easily say the _smokers_ are the ones who are crying; it gets us nowhere. It’s the intellectual equivalent of calling your opponent a poopy-pants. So let’s just forget that silly schoolyard game, o.k.? As for your comparison to the content of films, I think you are stretching your point beyond absurdity. We’re talking about filling the air with a noxious substance that contains dangerous chemicals, yet you make it sound like it’s as trivial as the difference between showing Jerry Springer or the football game on the big screen t.v. Let’s be honest about what we’re talking about here. I’m not complaining about “not having restaurants I can go to.” What’s happening is that _smokers_ are complaining about not having restaurants _they_ can smoke in. I’m perfectly happy with things the way there are, yet I _still_ made the concession that I would be o.k. with having places where people smoke, just so long as it isn’t _every single place in existence_. How you turned that around in your mind so that you think _I’m_ the one who’s complaining is beyond me. Your position seems to be that it’s not enough to have _some_ smoking places, but that _every_ place must allow smoking before you are satisfied. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2003, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/162 "2003-11-30T21:26:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nightime \* > \*\*Pervert or Dewey, can you explain why we should prohibit drug use in private that doesn’t affect others, but at the same time allow without restrictions smoking that harms others in public places? \*\* I think drug prohibition, particularly for things like marijuana, is incredibly stupid. I don’t think we should do a second stupid thing just for the sake of being consistently stupid. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2003, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/163 "2003-11-30T21:29:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by whuckfistle \* > I know of VERY few people who don`t go out because of the quality of air in the bars. I know of no-one who doesn`t go to any particular restauraunt because of the quality of the air inside. > > The fact is that MOST people are not bothered by it. You are basing that conclusion on some very shaky anecdotal evidence. Maybe _you_ know of very few people who are bothered by smoke, but I happen to know of _lots_ of people who ARE. In fact, you have encountered many people in this very forum who are bothered by smoke, so to say you know of very few is patently absurd. Additionally, you are using a little subterfuge in your argument. You say you know of very few people who **don’t go out**. Then you say you know of _noone_ who **doesn’t go to a particular restaurant**. Then you conclude that most people are not **bothered** by cigarette smoke. Why did you soften the claim in the first 2 sentences? You seem to be making the tacit assumption that if someone goes to a smoking bar, that he is not bothered by smoke. That’s ridiculous. People want fire exits, but if they didn’t exist, people would still go to bars. My dog likes fresh meat, and doesn’t like dry dogfood, but if I only offer him the dry food, he will eat it out of necessity. That’s not evidence that he prefers it. Would you agree that seatbelts are a good thing to have in a car? Did you know that the first cars that were sold didn’t have seatbelts? Can we say that people didn’t want seatbelts, or they wouldn’t have bought those cars? I say no - it doesn’t follow. You can’t draw conclusions from people’s choices if there was no alternative choice offered. And “not buying a car” or “staying home” are not effective alternatives. If I point a gun at your head and say “give me your wallet”, it’s disingenuous for me to say that you “chose” to give me your wallet. You chose to do so, but only because you were not given a satisfactory alternative. > [@](#): > > I don`t see a plethora of smoke free establishments opening up anywhere. Back to the circular reasoning again, I see.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2003, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/164 "2003-11-30T21:34:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > **There’s that assumption again - that it is intrinsically superior to allow business owners to do whatever they like. I say it is not intrinsically preferable, and that you need to make the case as for why you believe it is.** This has been explained to you several times. Private ownership of property confers certain rights on the owners of that property. As long as the actions are not infringing on the rights of others, there is nothing to “allow”. It is simply refusing to interfere with an individuals freedom that dictates that the state should not. You seem to believe that some other higherarchy of values can be formulated for the distribution or exploitation of resources other than private ownership. IOW, you seem to suggest that if non smoking venues do not exist on their own, that government’s forcing of them is justified. And yes, I remember you claim that retail businesses are public places. You also admitted that such “publicness” is not the same as government owned. You did not suggest how they might be different, however. And I also remember that you made a claim to breath clean air. However, you failed to suggest how allowing smoking in my bar would inhibit such a right. Except of course, that you did say that when no bars (or very few in your area) volunteered to prohibit smoking this constituted a violation of your rights. You have not, however, demonstrated that you have a right to patronize bars. > [@](#): > > Let’s be honest about what we’re talking about here. I’m not complaining about “not having restaurants I can go to.” Well, I think these quotes from you bely that claim. You seem to hold that your right to a non smoking restaraunt or bar is beyond question. > [@](#): > > As I said before, as long as an alternative exists for us, the nonsmokers, I wouldn’t have a problem > [@](#): > > It only accomplishes the goals if there is an ALTERNATIVE to smoking venues. If, as was the case here in California before the legislation, there are virtually no places for nonsmokers to go, it doesn’t do squat. > [@](#): > > But I do believe that the government is justified in stepping in so that nonsmoking citizens do not have to suffer simply for the convenience of smokers. > [@](#): > > I’m perfectly happy with things the way there are, yet I still made the concession that I would be o.k. with having places where people smoke, just so long as it isn’t every single place in existence. Again, “to be honest” you are happy with the way things are since 1998 when the California law went into effect banning smoking everywhere. And to “turn things around” how does allowing smoking cause smoking in “every single place in existence”? > [@](#): > > Your position seems to be that it’s not enough to have some smoking places, but that every place must allow smoking before you are satisfied. No, the position against smoking bans holds that “every place” must be allowed to choose for itself. Just as every patron must be allowed to choose for herself. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2003, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/165 "2003-11-30T21:41:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*There’s that assumption again - that it is intrinsically superior to allow business owners to do whatever they like. I say it is not intrinsically preferable, and that you need to make the case as for why you believe it is. \*\* It isn’t just letting business owners do what they like, it’s letting people in general do what they like. Absent a compelling reason for a restriction, I come down on the side of personal freedom. If a bar owner, and his employees, and most of his customers all like to smoke, you shoudn’t be able to tell them not to just because you personally like a smoke-free environment. \*\* > [@](#): > > First of all, making mock “crying” noises does nothing to further your argument. I could just as easily say the _smokers_ are the ones who are crying; it gets us nowhere. It’s the intellectual equivalent of calling your opponent a poopy-pants. So let’s just forget that silly schoolyard game, o.k.? \*\* I was distinguishing between the health argument, which I think is arguable, and the “I think smoke is icky and want to be sure I have smoke-free restaurants” argument, which is childish. Proponents of the latter deserve to be called poopy-pants. \*\* > [@](#): > > As for your comparison to the content of films, I think you are stretching your point beyond absurdity. We’re talking about filling the air with a noxious substance that contains dangerous chemicals, yet you make it sound like it’s as trivial as the difference between showing Jerry Springer or the football game on the big screen t.v. \*\* You’re raising the health argument, which I clearly specified my analogy was not intended to encompass. Please pay better attention. If we put the health argument to the side, we’re left with a mere aesthetic preference. You’re basically saying you don’t like stinky establishments, so no one should be able to open a stinky establishment. That’s just as absurd as saying you find Springer noxious, so no one should be able to watch Springer in a public place. \*\* > [@](#): > > Let’s be honest about what we’re talking about here. I’m not complaining about “not having restaurants I can go to.” What’s happening is that _smokers_ are complaining about not having restaurants _they_ can smoke in. \*\* This is false. Smokers aren’t advocating banning nonsmoking places. Smokers won’t picket you if you open a nonsmoking establishment. It’s smoking opponents who are seeking to change the status quo by government action, not smokers. \*\* > [@](#): > > I’m perfectly happy with things the way there are, yet I _still_ made the concession that I would be o.k. with having places where people smoke, just so long as it isn’t _every single place in existence_. How you turned that around in your mind so that you think _I’m_ the one who’s complaining is beyond me. \*\* I gather you support some kind of government management of the market in this area. You’re the one advocating a change in status quo. Ergo, you’re the one complaining. \*\* > [@](#): > > Your position seems to be that it’s not enough to have _some_ smoking places, but that _every_ place must allow smoking before you are satisfied. \*\* That is completely false, and I challenge you to quote anything I’ve posted that would lead to that conclusion. What I _have_ said is that the market should decide these sorts of things, and I shouldn’t impose my preferences by force of law. Whether that means all smoking places or all nonsmoking places or some combination of the two is something I’m completely indifferent on. BTW, I don’t smoke, and generally prefer nonsmoking establishments. My personal aesthetic preference favors the ban. I just don’t think my personal aesthetic preferences are sufficient reason to take away freedoms from my fellow citizens. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2003, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/166 "2003-11-30T21:50:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*Right; so wouldn’t you say that each issue should be debated on its merits, and that there really is no general principle that says a regulation is _automatically_ bad? And conversely, I don’t think they’re all automatically good. > \*\* I didn’t notice this earlier so excuse me for the late hijack. OF course there are principles governing the implementation of new laws (or regulations). That’s the whole idea behind constitutional representative government. No one “rules”. At any given time, a particular party may govern, but they must obey the same rules and the previous government. In this sense, each issue should not be debated on its merits. Besides which, without general principles how are we to decide what the merits of a particular regulaton might be? If I had a plan to elliminate poverty and cancer which I could back up with good scientific data, but it required teh enslavement of, say, 2% of the population, should we debate it? Or should we reject it out of hand? What if it was only .02%? What if 90% of the citezens support the plan? Is it OK then? Obviously, I’m not suggesting that such a plan exists, nor am I drawing parrallels between slavery and smoking bans. I’m simply suggesting how general principles are not only possible, but necessary. Otherwise we are simply ruled by the mob. end hijack. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/167 "2003-12-01T09:26:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > It isn’t just letting business owners do what they like, it’s letting people in general do what they like. Absent a compelling reason for a restriction, I come down on the side of personal freedom. No, you are coming down on the side of business. I am coming down on the side of the consumer. There is not only _your_ fredom to consider; there is mine as well. Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my face begins. > [@](#): > > If a bar owner, and his employees, and most of his customers all like to smoke, you shoudn’t be able to tell them not to just because you personally like a smoke-free environment. But “most customers” do _not_ like to smoke. If you can cite me a survey that shows a majority of U.S. citizens smoke cigarettes, I will retract that. Otherwise it stands. And again, it’s not just that I “don’t like” it, it’s because it’s a nuisance and a health hazard. > [@](#): > > I was distinguishing between the health argument, which I think is arguable, and the “I think smoke is icky and want to be sure I have smoke-free restaurants” argument, which is childish. Proponents of the latter deserve to be called poopy-pants. I’ve seen your debating in other threads, Dewey, and frankly, this kind of stuff is beneath you. I honestly expected better from you. > [@](#): > > You’re raising the health argument, which I clearly specified my analogy was not intended to encompass. Please pay better attention. Oh, so if I disagree with you, I’m “not paying attention”, huh? Seriously, you can do better than this. > [@](#): > > If we put the health argument to the side, we’re left with a mere aesthetic preference. You’re basically saying you don’t like stinky establishments, so no one should be able to open a stinky establishment. That’s just as absurd as saying you find Springer noxious, so no one should be able to watch Springer in a public place. I already explained how this analogy is flawed, so I will not repeat myself. Suffice it to say that your repetition of it does not make it any more valid. > [@](#): > > BTW, I don’t smoke, and generally prefer nonsmoking establishments. My personal aesthetic preference favors the ban. I just don’t think my personal aesthetic preferences are sufficient reason to take away freedoms from my fellow citizens. Nobody’s freedom has been taken away.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/168 "2003-12-01T17:52:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*No, you are coming down on the side of business. I am coming down on the side of the consumer. There is not only _your_ fredom to consider; there is mine as well. Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my face begins. > […] > Nobody’s freedom has been taken away.:rolleyes: \*\* Dude! Seriously. This has to be the umpteenth time you’ve implied a freedom or right to patronize businesses. Can you please justify this? In the absence of such justification, you have the swinging fist analogy backwards. Just because I enter your business does not give me the right to demand that you refrain from using peanuts. Even if I am deathly allergic to them. It certainly does not give me the authority to demand that all restaraunts stop using peanuts so that I can have a relaxing dining experience. This understanding of the rights of business owners and customers would not change if 75% of the population was allergic to peanuts. And, so, again, absent a cogent proposal of a right to frequent a particular business, you are wrong. The business owners rights to allow smoking, the patrons right to enjoy smoking, and even the non smokers right to participate in activities where smoking is permitted (should they want to) are being taken away by these bans. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/169 "2003-12-01T18:10:03Z")
> [@](#): > > …the non smokers right to participate in activities where smoking is permitted (should they want to) are being taken away by these bans. Are you implying a right to patronize a business? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/170 "2003-12-01T19:03:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*No, you are coming down on the side of business. I am coming down on the side of the consumer. \*\* Not so. I fully support the right of businesspersons to open nonsmoking establishments to lure nonsmokers who despise smoke away from smoking establishments. I fully support the right of consumers to choose which types of establishments they prefer to frequent. In short, I’m arguing in favor of greater individual freedom. You, on the other hand, are looking to remove choices from the marketplace, to dictate the types of establishments available to consumers by government fiat. That is by definition less free. \*\* > [@](#): > > There is not only _your_ fredom to consider; there is mine as well. Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my face begins. \*\* Your voluntary repeated ramming of your face into my fist does not constitute me abusing my freedom to swing my fist. No one forces you to go to smoking establishments. No one is holding a gun to your head and making you walk into a smoking bar. So spare me the silly analogies. \*\* > [@](#): > > But “most customers” do _not_ like to smoke. If you can cite me a survey that shows a majority of U.S. citizens smoke cigarettes, I will retract that. Otherwise it stands.\*\* Straw man. The issue isn’t how many people actually smoke, the issue is how many people are seriously bothered by cigarette smoke. Believe it or not, many nonsmokers just don’t particularly care all that much as to whether their favorite bar allows smoking or not. \*\* > [@](#): > > And again, it’s not just that I “don’t like” it, it’s because it’s a nuisance and a health hazard. \*\* Saying it’s a “nuisance” is the same as saying you just don’t like it. I’ve already conceded that the health argument is a reasonable one. My point is addressed at the nuisance argument, not the health argument. I’ve stated that several times. One thus wonders why you continue to bring up the health argument. \*\* > [@](#): > > Oh, so if I disagree with you, I’m “not paying attention”, huh? Seriously, you can do better than this. \*\* It is not your disagreement with me that leads me to the conclusion that you are not paying attention, but rather the fact that you obviously didn’t pick up on my clear disclaimer that my analogy was aimed only towards the nuisance argument and not the health argument. How else am I to interpret your inattention to such an important caveat?\*\* > [@](#): > > I already explained how this analogy is flawed, so I will not repeat myself. Suffice it to say that your repetition of it does not make it any more valid. \*\* Your argument against my analogy was premised solely on the health argument, which I specifically disclaimed when I made the movie analogy in the first place. The analogy applies only to the nuisance argument. Why is this simple fact so difficult for you to grasp? \*\* > [@](#): > > Nobody’s freedom has been taken away.:rolleyes: \*\* Not true, for the reasons stated by **pervert**. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/171 "2003-12-01T19:38:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Believe it or not, many nonsmokers just don’t particularly care all that much as to whether their favorite bar allows smoking or not. Then where did the legislation come from? Shouldn’t the legislatures be fearing for their jobs if they enact unpopular laws? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/172 "2003-12-01T19:50:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Attrayant \* > **Then where did the legislation come from?** Annoying busybodies. \*\* > [@](#): > > Shouldn’t the legislatures be fearing for their jobs if they enact unpopular laws? \*\* I didn’t say most nonsmokers _favored_ smoking establishments, I said they were apathetic on the issue of whether or not an establishment permits or does not permit smoking. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/173 "2003-12-01T20:07:45Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > …the non smokers right to participate in activities where smoking is permitted (should they want to) are being taken away by these bans. > > \*Originally posted by Attrayant \* > \*\*Are you implying a right to patronize a business? \*\* No, I’m suggesting a right to freely associate. And more importantly, I am trying to make the point (less elloquently than **Dewey Cheatem Undhow** did) that this is not exactly a war between smokers and non smokers. There are members of both groups on both sides. Specifically, I was trying to point out that some non smokers don’t mind going to smokey bars. Perhaps some may even consider it part of the experience. If those that like smoke tried to force all bars to put tobacco burning devices in the corner, I’m sure everyone would be up in arms. While I’m sure that some of the objections would be made because tobacco smoke is annoying or hasardous. But my objection would be the same as my objection to the smoking ban. Both proposals are an uneccesary violation of property rights. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/174 "2003-12-02T07:21:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pervert \* > The business owners rights to allow smoking, the patrons right to enjoy smoking, and even the non smokers right to participate in activities where smoking is permitted (should they want to) are being taken away by these bans. You have no such rights. If you believe you have the rights you have just spelled out, please tell me in which article of the Bill of Rights they are spelled out. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/175 "2003-12-02T07:48:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*You have no such rights. If you believe you have the rights you have just spelled out, please tell me in which article of the Bill of Rights they are spelled out. \*\* Sure. In order of applicibility. > [@](#): > > **Amendment IX** : > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. > [@](#): > > **Amendment X** : > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. > [@](#): > > **Amendment IV** : > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized > [@](#): > > **Amendment I** : > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. > [@](#): > > **Amendment XIII** : > Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. > Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > [@](#): > > **Amendment XIV** : > Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. And just so we are complete in our efforts to stamp out ignorance, I have a few choice entries from the constitution of California. These are simply in the order I found them. > [@](#): > > SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. > [@](#): > > SEC. 6. Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime. > [@](#): > > SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; I went through some of the Arizona constitution as well, and learned some interesting things (an express right to privacy for instance). But I think I’ll stop the quoting here. I should note that this is not a legal argument. I am not proposing that the California law or oanyother particular law banning smoking is unconstitutional. I am simply pointing out that a right to freely associate, own property (and by extension exploit that property freely), are in fact arguable rights. Primarily, I would point to amendment IX of the US constitution. As suggesting this right. Since we are bandying aroung the constitution, perhaps you would like to point out the article which permits the government to ban smoking? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/176 "2003-12-02T07:51:06Z")
Darn. I forgot to ask again for your defense of you claim to a right to have smoke free environment for eating provided to you. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/177 "2003-12-02T08:07:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > Not so. I fully support the right of businesspersons to open nonsmoking establishments to lure nonsmokers who despise smoke away from smoking establishments. I fully support the right of consumers to choose which types of establishments they prefer to frequent. In short, I’m arguing in favor of greater individual freedom. The point has already been made that such establishments DO NOT EXIST in an amount proportional to those who desire them unless regulations are implemented. In the time before civil rights legislation, black people wanted to get the same service that whites got, and nobody can seriously argue that they didn’t care about the issue. Did they _get_ the same service? Hell no. You could have “supported the right of businesspersons” to serve blacks equally, but it wouldn’t have done squat. You could have supported the “rights” of white people to be able to eat and drink without blacks under the guise of “freedom”, but calling something a right when it is in fact an _infringement_ on the rights of others is dishonest. Leaving everything up to the business owner is not pro-consumer. You can put whatever bullshit spin you want on it, it’s still not. > [@](#): > > You, on the other hand, are looking to remove choices from the marketplace, to dictate the types of establishments available to consumers by government fiat. No I’m not. Go back and read some of my posts. I have said over and over that I would be in favor of having _some_ places that allow smoking, just so long as they don’t _all_ allow smoking. If _every_ place allows smoking, there’s no consumer choice involved, is there? Why are you having so much trouble with the concept? > [@](#): > > No one forces you to go to smoking establishments. Oh, PLEASE.:rolleyes: My God, is that ever a silly argument. Nobody “forced” people to work in coal mines and die of black lung. Nobody “forced” people to drink water contaminated by chemicals from industry and die of cancer. Nobody “forced” the disabled to go into buildings that were inaccessible to them. Nobody “forces” you to eat contaminated food. Yet it is perfectly reasonable to have regulations for all of these things. > [@](#): > > Straw man. The issue isn’t how many people actually smoke, the issue is how many people are seriously bothered by cigarette smoke. Believe it or not, many nonsmokers just don’t particularly care all that much as to whether their favorite bar allows smoking or not. On the contrary, it is quite obvious that people _do_ care, and if you believe otherwise, prove it. > [@](#): > > I’ve already conceded that the health argument is a reasonable one. My point is addressed at the nuisance argument, not the health argument. Sorry, but you can’t just ignore part of the picture to make your point. > [@](#): > > I’ve stated that several times. One thus wonders why you continue to bring up the health argument. > > [whining and babbling snipped] > > Your argument against my analogy was premised solely on the health argument, which I specifically disclaimed when I made the movie analogy in the first place. The analogy applies only to the nuisance argument. Question: Why is a license required for a public business that features nudity? Is it a health risk to look at naked people? > [@](#): > > Not true, for the reasons stated by **pervert**. Fabulous argument.:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I didn’t say most nonsmokers favored smoking establishments, I said they were apathetic on the issue of whether or not an establishment permits or does not permit smoking. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/178 "2003-12-02T08:29:18Z")
Maybe I wasn’t clear, pervert. I wanted you to show what part of the constitution spells out a “right to enjoy smoking” or a “business owner’s right to allow smoking”, not post a random sampling of irrelevant constitutional provisions. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pervert \* > Since we are bandying aroung the constitution, perhaps you would like to point out the article which permits the government to ban smoking? You already posted it: > [@](#): > > Amendment X: > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. It says powers that aren’t prohibited are reserved to the states or to the people. It doesn’t say reserved to business owners and _not_ the states. Show me the part of the Constitution that specifically prohibits states from regulating smoking. And if you can sucessfully do that, then explain what should prevent me from opening a restaurant that only serves white people. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/179 "2003-12-02T09:22:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*The point has already been made that such establishments DO NOT EXIST in an amount proportional to those who desire them unless regulations are implemented. \*\* And the point has never been made that such proportional representation has anything to do with anything but your desire to have a venue to enjoy. > [@](#): > > \*\* > In the time before civil rights legislation, black people wanted to get the same service that whites got, and nobody can seriously argue that they didn’t care about the issue. Did they _get_ the same service? Hell no. You could have “supported the right of businesspersons” to serve blacks equally, but it wouldn’t have done squat. You could have supported the “rights” of white people to be able to eat and drink without blacks under the guise of “freedom”, but calling something a right when it is in fact an _infringement_ on the rights of others is dishonest. Leaving everything up to the business owner is not pro-consumer. You can put whatever bullshit spin you want on it, it’s still not.\*\* You may be laboring under a delusion as to the history of the civil rights movement. [This site contains many facts concerning this issue](http://www.ghg.net/hollaway/civil/contents.htm) There are many stories about changes to governmental structures and regulations. The one titled “Spontaneous Reactions” has to do with places of “public accomodations”. > [@](#): > > Joseph McNeil and three other students decided to go to the local Woolworth store and remain there until they were served. The waitress refused to serve them, so the four young men just sat there until they were arrested. Each day, the protesters return and grew in numbers. As seen above, many were abused by the on-lookers. As each day passed, the White power structure’s hearts were hardened to any possible change. > > Black adults soon joined in, and a boycott of downtown area stores began. When many of the stores were near financial ruin, the decision was made to break with tradition and desegregate the lunch counters. When success of the boycott spread around the country, other Black students spontaneously formed organization to initiate similar non-violent protests around the country. This protest took place in 1960. Four years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That is, the regulations implemented a rule that had already been in place for some time. Also, if you read the act itself, it does not apply to bars. It only applies to places of “public accomodation” which are engaged in interstate trade. And it only prevents other establishments from discriminating if they do so as a result of some state or local ordinance. That is, it prevents states from forcing businesses to become “whites only”. IOW perhaps this legislation is more pro business choice than we thought. Also your analogy to non smokers and race is quite misleading. No one is suggesting that non smokers should be prohibited from using “public accomadation” facilities. No one is suggesting that non smokers be subjected to tobacco smoke while smokers should be free of it. You are the one claiming that a portion of the population should be forced outside. _I hope I don’t have to say that I am not in favor or racial discrimination of any sort. I simply think that free association rights must apply to the bigots amongst us as well._ > [@](#): > > Maybe I wasn’t clear, pervert. I wanted you to show what part of the constitution spells out a “right to enjoy smoking” or a “business owner’s right to allow smoking”, not post a random sampling of irrelevant constitutional provisions. Well, they were not random or irrelevant. Taken together (Especially IX, IV, and I) they do indicate a recognition of private ownership rights. Obviously, the constitution does not mention smoking specifically. Neither does it mention food or water. The ommision (if you read ammendment IX) should not be taken as meaning that no such rights exist. It can certainly be taken to mean that you are wrong when you suggest that “No right to run a business exists”. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/180 "2003-12-02T10:49:14Z")
[I should have inlcuded this link to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title II](http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/39.htm) > [@](#): > > Sec. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. > > (b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: > > Sec 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof. I am not a lawyer. And I have not researched this beyond a few historical articles and reading this law. If anyone can point to a supreme court case which expands the scope of the law I would appreciate it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304.md?page=10)