VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03:11:41 12/17/02 Tue
Author: coyotyl of rights
Subject: constitutional scholars, is there a flaw in this argument?

... we're in the midst of local public debate down here in re the enactment of a local smoking ordinance banning smoking in restaurants and bars in addition to the government and public ones already in place. my own argument here is that the constitution already covers this behavior (and it makes the argument of "smokers' rights" dumbshits that they have the right to light up anywhere laughable by hitting them back over the head with what they think is their own sledgehammer) and that no bans or ordinances controlling behavior are actually absolutely necessary.

the Constitution basically guarantees the right of anyone to pretty much do anything (your own right to throw a punch ends at the point just short of connecting with someone else's jaw), just so long as it reasonably doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, correct? i in no way seek to restrict a person's right to light up and/or kill themselves however they might wish or be compelled, but merely establish the battleground here at the common environment of a shared, combined (as defined by whatever particular environs) atmosphere, to wit: anyone of age may smoke so long as someone else who doesn't wish to doesn't have to breathe that smoke which you put in our shared airspace, certainly making the choice for me that i must breathe that smoke-filled air ... my right to breathe confined and smoke-free air (the natural state, after all) supercedes another's right to fill that same air with smoke, by virtue that i have to breathe, whereas a smoker doesn not have to smoke. this is but a simple constitutional matter of the proper exercise of a citizen's own rights and responsibilities under the Constitution. is my case airtight here, so to speak, or is there a flaw or smokescreen that i'm just not seeing?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.