Correction?

Ms. Rand WAS A SMOKER!!!!!

Ayn Rand quit smoking in 1974, 8 years before her death. The reason she quit was a lung cancer diagnosis and surgery to remove the lung in 1974.

Ms. Rand died of heart failure at the age of 77.

Who the hell died and put Joshlyn in charge?

I thought this site belonged to Carlos?

But Joshlyn's post just proved my point about his lack of reading comprehension skills, now didn't it?

ROFLMAO

"It is not advisable, Joshlyn, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener."

Ayn Rand

Smokinglobby.com is an online smoker's rights forum for both cigarette smokers and non-smokers alike to discuss fundamental individual freedoms and the right to choose whether or not to smoke.

If you DO have current legal support for your assertion of unconstitutionality of smoking bans, show me just one case. I promise not to disclose its secrets to the "anti" forces.

I'm gonna pipe in here, because a letter I received from the ACLU in 2006, that I thought was insignificant, just may have some value. Whilst they could not handle "my" case they stated "...[it] is in no way a reflection on the merits of your claim"

They further directed me to file a Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 lawsuit pro se to address civil rights violations.

A reader from another forum looked this up in a law library. It's under Segregation and Discrimination. I'm assuming it referenced the plight of the blacks; however, it's applicable in the plight of smokers as written.

Therefore, I'd say the treatment of smokers (and business owners who wish to cater to smokers) is absolutely UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

It should be perfectly obvious to any rational person that the State of Maryland, in view of the well-known harmful effects of secondhand smoke, has a legitimate interest in protecting the health of non-smokers forced to be its guests in correctional facilities. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that state actors could face liability under section 1983 if they do not protect non-smokers from smokers' secondhand smoke.

. . .decided cases have repeatedly rejected claims that prison anti-smoking policies violate the Equal Protection Clause, and for good reason. The reason, of course, is that the act of smoking is entitled to only a minimal level of protection under the Equal Protection Clause, as it is obviously not a fundamental right, nor is the classification between smokers and non-smokers a suspect one.

Obviously, given the Supreme Court's holding in Helling, supra, the State of Maryland has a legitimate interest in eliminating non-smokers' exposure to secondhand smoke in its prisons, and a rational way of accomplishing the State's goal in that regard is to prohibit sale or possession of tobacco products in prisons. Indeed, given the close confinement situation
in prisons, it is probably the only rational way. Thus, there is no viable equal protection claim stated. For cases that have reached the same result, see, e.g., Hills v. Stewart, 199 F.3d 1332, 1999 WL 970804 (9th Cir.1999), Johnson v. Saffle, 166 F.3d 1221, 1998 WL 792071 (10th Cir.1998), Webber v. Crabtree, 158 F.3d 460 (9th Cir.1998), and Harvey v. Foote, 92 F.3d 1192, 1996 WL 441776 (9th Cir.1996) (affirming dismissal for legal frivolity). There are more cases, but it would be pointless to cite
them, for they speak with one voice in rejecting claims such as the plaintiff's equal protection claim in this case.

I found this case by Googling "42 U.S.C. 1983 smoking". Now, please post a case that supports the argument that smoking bans are prohibited under 42 U.S.C. 1983 or are unconstitutional.

I have to say it is curious that 2 seemingly lawyers are posting here and saying why our rights being violated is okay and we don't stand a chance.
I have a very popular website and forum dealing with offshore work (oil companies and the boating industry that supports it). A couple of years ago there was a huge push to get the boat crews into a union, before that, no oil company related boat companies were interested in the site or forum, but with the union push the companies had people on the site posting every day and even the US Coast Guard had a renewed interest in the sites. (All offshore oil boat companies are regulated by the US Coast Guard)
They managed to post enough fear into the boat crews to overcome the union. Even though the supply boat crews do not get benefits such as holidays, sick days, overtime or virtually any other benefit most people get. However, the fear factor worked, they made sure people would be afraid of being laid off or fired at a time when the companies were begging for employees.
Companies have big bucks to employ smart people to overcome the sheep, it normally works out great for them.
My suggestion, seek out attorneys who WILL fight for the rights of smokers, forget the posts of "who knows" on a forum.

I have to say it is curious that 2 seemingly lawyers are posting here and saying why our rights being violated is okay and we don't stand a chance.