New York Coalition of Social Smokers, Inc.

The United States was founded as a republic. Hence: "and to the republic for which it
stands....". An individuals right to free speech, property ownership and many other rights
shall not be infringed no matter how much public benefit might be gained. Smokers rights
therefore are not separate rights but, the same rights afforded to every individual in this
country.

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". The founding fathers were deliberately broad
in their proclamation. Their assumption was an individual's rights were to be held above
those of any government or collective group. The Supreme Court has affirmed this view
time and time again.

One example: Roe vs. Wade. The courts decision was not about abortion Per Se, but
about an individuals right to choose. Despite the benefit or cost to society argued by both
sides, an individual's rights must take priority over all others.

The right to a smokeless environment! I believe that non-smokers, like everyone else, has
this right. But how far does that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else's
rights? Airplanes, court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an individual
might be forced to go should properly be included in any smoking law. What should not be
included are places located in or on private property, providing an individual is not
compelled by necessity or law, to frequent or work at that specific location.

Every individual also has a right to worship in their own way. As we should, we hold this
right in very high regard. Even so, that right ends when they enter someone else's home or
place of business. Imagine someone insisting that you stop serving meat solely on the
basis that their religion forbids it. An argument to protect another persons religious belief is
much more compelling than any smokeless environmental right. Even where the majority of
people might have a single religious belief in common, we as a society have never
condoned forcing an ideology of one group over another.

The Fifth Amendment states "No person shall be..... compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Business
owners have seen their rights violated. A part of their property has been seized for public
use through smoking ban legislation. Those who are smokers themselves have been told
that a legal activity is no longer legal for them on their own private property. In addition to
not being compensated, many have ended up paying for the partial property seizure with
lost revenue and a loss in the value of their businesses. This without due process of law or
just compensation.

One of the arguments used for smoking ban legislation is the benefit to public health or the
greater public good. This argument could easily be used to seize the property of say, Bill
Gates and use the money to feed, house and provide medical care for the poor. Public
health would be improved and tax payers would be relieved of the cost burden. A poll could
probably be produced to show public support of this act. Of course, this would be a
violation of Bill Gates rights. It would also open the door (as smoking bans have done) to
seizure of part or all of everyone else's private property.

Clearly the answer is yes. It is in our own interest to defend our neighbors rights as if
they were our own. Ultimately, it is by defending your rights that I preserve mine. The
quote " I may not agree with what you are saying but I would die for your right to say it"
means just that.

The Solution is legislation that protects and balances the rights of Non-Smokers, Property
Owners and Smokers alike. If we are truly interested in air quality, the Federal Government
has air quality standards in place for every chemical purportedly found in second hand
smoke. We could through public debate designate which establishments require public
attendance and which do not.

Grocery stores or hospitals would be good examples of private property where people
might be forced by necessity to frequent. The Downtown Bar and Grill would not be a
location anyone would specifically be forced by law or necessity to frequent.

In addition the legislation could be used to enforce an owners choice to have a smokeless
establishment even if the law otherwise allowed smoking on his or her property.

Millions spent on enacting and enforcing smoking bans could be better used to encourage
business owners to voluntarily provide smokeless areas or total smokeless business
environments