I am not saying that anyone is superior or inferior to anyone else. I was asking if you know the difference between a right and a privilige? Sounds like you don't.

So if they issued liscences to smoke, it would be a privelege, then without a liscence it would be a right> I say you should be free to put what you want into your body as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. In the smoking case I believe they have pretty much proven that second hand smoke does lead to cancer and other serious diseases: Here is a finding: Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke increases the risk of developing lung cancer, international experts have said.

A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of the major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30% more likely to develop lung cancer.

Passive smoking is quite clearly more than just the nuisance many of the world's tobacco companies would have us believe

Marsha Williams, ASH

The experts also found cancers of the stomach, liver, uterus, cervix, kidney and myeloid leukaemia could be caused in part by smoking.
The group of 29 experts from 12 countries found second-hand tobacco smoke was carcinogenic to humans and that typical levels of passive exposure have been shown to cause lung cancer among people who have never smoked.
This means hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide from these cancers could now be linked to smoking.
Definite link
Dr Kurt Straif, who organised the IARC meeting, said the group examined 50 studies examining the link between passive smoking and cancer.
Speaking to BBC News Online, he added: "This is the first time that a global organisation has concluded that exposure to second hand smoke is linked to cancer."
One of the experts, Sir Richard Doll, said: "Environmental tobacco smoke that people experience at work or at home is definitely a cause of lung cancer.
"That has been discussed for a long time but this is the first time a group of independent scientists have reviewed all the evidence and said there is no question it is a cause of lung cancer."
Sir Richard said the findings should have a significant influence on health policies around the world and could strengthen arguments for a ban in this country on smoking in workplaces.
The experts also stated that one half of all persistent cigarette smokers are eventually killed by a tobacco-related disease.
Half of these deaths occur in middle age, which means they lose an average of 20-25 years of non-smoker life expectancy.
Annually tobacco accounts for millions of cancer deaths around the world, and it is the largest cause of preventable cancers.
However it causes a greater number of premature deaths from cardiovascular and lung diseases and strokes than from cancer. Apart from cigarettes, other forms of tobacco smoking such as cigars and pipes increase the risks for cancer of the lung, head and neck. And I smoked for 37 years. I Must be on the way out!

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

As a smoker, I hate to agree with Vi, but as a Libertarian I have to.
However, the article (unless I'm misreading) says that the rules were changed after the people bought their condo. I don't think that's right.

Personally speaking, if my neighbors tried to stop me from smoking in my home, there would be serious consequences. (I'm an asshole, I know )

__________________
"An unexamined life is not worth living"
~--------------------------------------------------~

Well, Doob....that makes two of us. Count me an asshole, because if you pay for your dwelling, knowing there is no contract that prohibits your freedom to smoke...and the rules suddenly "change." Enough said....BS. Your home is your castle. BTW, smoke simply does NOT permeate via walls/floors.......utter BS. If the person either beside/beneath you is experiencing an "unnecessary odor".....I'd suggest they take it up with the HOA. Afterall, wth are they paid for half the time other than to be a milstone around your neck? Perhaps the building and ventilation aren't up to par. I say give the HOA something to actually WORK on. When a person purchases a condominium, they are knowingly placing themselves in an atmosphere of different personalities and/or habits. We have a sound oridinance for obvious reasons......yet to think you are entitled to dictate ones habits behind those four walls they OWN is ridiculous at best. BTW, attempt telling your Indian neighbor that they are no longer allowed to cook breakfast, lunch, dinner and every friggen snack in between that they are no longer permitted to cook.........Good luck. The smell that vehemently offends one, sooths the others soul. Should we all consider it our right to inflict what we find inconvinient/offensive?
What did you think you were signing up for? It's a PAID for apartment.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrackerJaxWelcome to the nanny state where strangers profess to know ur family better than you.....

And, Mogie, dude.....think about it. You have the "right" To bear arms. Do you know how sane your neighbor is? I sure as hell don't.
I figure if you "make" it your right and your full intention to knowingly move into such tight quraters, that you will make an informed decision based on what you can or can not tolerate prior to purchase. One can not feasibly think themselves entitled to "weed out" what they deem bad neighbors on the smoking premise alone.
No offense intended.....I respect non-smoker's rights. Moreso, I respect the right for a homeowner to establish their own rules within their OWN home.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrackerJaxWelcome to the nanny state where strangers profess to know ur family better than you.....

As for second-hand smoke, that's tricky. Leave alone what "They say."
I once met a woman in her mid-thirties....never smoked, never exposed to second-hand by any family members/loved ones or work atmosphere........lung cancer--doesn't make sense. The last time I saw this woman, she carried an oxygen tank with her wherever she went.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrackerJaxWelcome to the nanny state where strangers profess to know ur family better than you.....

I know this is old, but breathing air causes cancer nowadays.Plastic causes cancer.The second hand smoke argument is just a tactic to distract us from what is really killing us.I've been exposed to HEAVY second hand smoke all of my life. My lungs are in awesome shape.

__________________
The rousing tale of a young gynecologist:
Now that I've made you laugh,Sign my petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/420now/petition.html

Isn't that an Ex post Facto law.

privilege
n. a special benefit, exemption from a duty, or immunity from penalty, given to a particular person, a group or a class of people.

right
1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms; protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property; civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts; natural rights accepted by civilized societies; human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor; and such U.S. constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. 2) adj. just, fair, correct.

Sounds like its a right to me.

As for driving its a right to:

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court
decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

"THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489

Its only a privledge when your doing buisness on the roads (truckers) or if you waive your right by getting a licence. You are not a driver you are a traveler. There is your diffrence.

Interesting, Ilkan ...

Here's where the public has been duped: We apply (ignorantly) for a "driver's" license when we are not "drivers." We are simply travelers. "Drivers" are those professional people who drive other people for a fee like bus drivers and taxi drivers.

We also (ignorantly) think that we carry "passengers" in our cars, when in fact, we carry guests. "Passengers" are those folks being driven by those professional drivers alluded to above.

We ignorantly "register" our vehicles and pay a special tax (license fees) to a government agency (DMV). An automobile is personal property, not unlike our refrigerators and couches. Why are we not required to register our refrigerators and couches and pay a special fee on them? The answer isn't because we need to pay for the roads ... roads are paid for out of the gasoline taxes.

Just food for thought.

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

So now I'm left to wonder, What if someone in a condo has a chemical sensitivity, does that mean they have the right to govern which cleaning products their neighbors use? The chemicals in Febreeze, for instance, damn near kill me. So can Colleen, now that precident has been established, sue her neighbor over every cleaning product scent, dryer sheets, food smells, etc?

What if Colleen is allergic to peanut butter and smells can travel, does she now have a right to go into her neighbors kitchen and throw away foods that bother her? Her neighbor gets to govern her right to smoke in her home, if I was Colleen I'd turn that shit right back around on her.

What if someone in a condo has a pollen allergy? Does that mean nobody else can grow flowers?