Clearing The Air

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Have courts already ruled against smoking bans?

http://www.nycclash.com/Kentucky.pdf

From page 23 of the court decision above comes this excerpt:

DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE GRAVES
I would strike down the ordinance as being arbitrary and oppressive and therefore in violation of Section 2 of the Bill of Rights of the Kentucky Constitution'. The ordinance is arbitrary because there are less intrusive means to achieve the intended result of making sure that the health of non-smokers is protected. The ordinance is oppressive because it operates as a regulatory partial taking of private property without just compensation.

Private property does not belong to the public. Employing a large staff, or providing services to many people, is not sufficient to transform private property into public property. The litmus test for private property is ownership, not the size of the customer base or the work force. Customers or employees who object [to smoking] may go elsewhere . They would not be relinquishing any right that they ever possessed . By contrast, when a businessman is forced to effect an unwanted smoking policy on his own property, the government is taking part of his property by regulation.

In addition to the above dissenting opinion by the Kentucky Supreme Court, future court challenges to smoking ban legislation would do well to include this government conducted air quality testing which proves secondhand smoke is 500-15 times safer than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke require. IE. smoking ban ordinances are unnecessary as OSHA already regulates the workplace indoor air quality.