On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 18:11, Michael Atherton wrote: > Jim Bernstein wrote: > > > When did smoking become a "human right"? In fact, there is no such > > thing as "smokers rights" so lets not elevate this "nasty > > habit" to the status of a basic human right! > > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created > equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable > Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." > > According to the Declaration of Independence the pursuit > of happiness is an unalienable right. It would seem smokers may > indeed have a right to their nasty habit, however this right would > not allow them to inflict harm on other individuals.
Well, thankfully the Declaration of Independence doesn't have the force of law! It's just a Dear John letter from a new country to the old country. On the other hand, if the Constitution can support the War on Drugs (even as that War stretches the bounds of common sense, let alone Constitutional boundries), certainly the City of Minneapolis is on firm legal footing to ban smoking in whole or in part-- even in private homes I should think. Indeed, even the preamble of the Constitution would seem to support laws like this that are for the "public good": WE, the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Personally I don't think the spirit of the Constitution supports a ban on either drugs or cigarettes, especially if used in the privacy of one's own home or business. Apparently the Courts (whose opinions in these matters outweigh my own) think differently. But don't worry about the Constitution, either, because no one's apparently read that in Minneapolis. If they had they would never have made it illegal to dance in the streets. Dancing is a form of expression that one would normally think is protected by the First Amendment. Here's a thought, City Council, I won't object to the smoking ban if you repeal of the dancing ban. Seems to me we ought to be able to have some fun around here! -Michael Libby, Cleveland neighborhood, who much prefers dancing to smoking, and wonders why I can't dance in the streets, but I can smoke on them???? REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
