Your first link is from Australia, hold no weight in the US.
The second is from Canada, and from what I can tell has to do with hate
crimes, looking for the connection.

Not sure if you read the third link at all but they found that she was on
PRIVATE not PUBLIC property, and dismissed the case against her:

"The appellant, Rochelle Weaver, was convicted of drinking in
public, Ark. Code Ann.  5-71-212(c) (Repl. 1993), sentenced to
thirty days in jail, and ordered to pay a $100.00 fine.  The jail
sentence and all but twenty-five dollars of the fine were suspended
for one year.  Appellant essentially claims that the trial court
should have dismissed her case because she was not drinking in a
"public place" within the meaning of the drinking-in-public
statute.  We agree with her argument and reverse and dismiss.  In
so holding, it is unnecessary for us to reach appellant's remaining
argument that the statute is unconstitutionally vague."

Your fourth link is not specific enough to win this argument in the least.
The only real property it mentions by name is a parking lot.  It does say
that the property does not have to be entirely for public use, implying that
it at least must be partially for public use.  Public being government, or
community funds.

You still have not backed up the comment:

"To your other points, I think you will find that a public place is defined
in law as one that is frequented by the general public and thus a public
place would include streets, grocery stores, restaurants and some office
buildings."

Phillip Morris says it supports some regulation on public smoking, that's
great I have no problem with that.  I have a problem with people defining
private property as public.

Please do at your convenience.

Timothy Heald
Information Systems Specialist
Overseas Security Advisory Council
U.S. Department of State
571.345.2235


-----Original Message-----
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:20 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: woo hoo


well since you don't include the post you are replying to... I don't know 
if this is addressed to me. If so I take great exception to being called 
either fascist (especially misspelled) or communist, thank you. These are 
not names that should be thrown around lightly.

To your other points, I think you will find that a public place is defined 
in law as one that is frequented by the general public and thus a public 
place would include streets, grocery stores, restaurants and some office 
buildings.

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/litter/litterlaws/litterlaws.htm#public
http://www.acjnet.org/youthfaq/define.html
http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/1996a/960930/cr96-472.txt
http://www.surfsidebeach.org/01-0457.HTM

Heck, Philip Morris thinks regulation of smoking in public places is 
warranted.

http://www.pmusa.com/policies_practices/public_place_smoking.asp

Your analogy with the sodomy laws just does not work as they were in a 
bedromm as I understand it, as place that is truly private, and minding 
their own business. They were not affecting anyone else at all.

Dana

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:40:45 -0400, Timothy Heald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Collectivist.  Communist.  Facist.  That is what I get from your 
> statement.
>
> Screw the individual.  Never mind that rights are supposed to come before 
> and above the whims of the masses.  A public place in one that the 
> goevernment owns.  Public does not mean where one or more of us gathers, 
> or you could legislate smoking in the home.  Do you then support the ban 
> on sodomy which prevents gay sex?  There were two men engaged on private 
> property.  Isn't this the same thing?
>
> Tim
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

                                Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
                                

Reply via email to