10 Japanese Travel Tips for Visiting America

Who is Federal Farmer? Was he a name change?

So it's perfectly reasonable for a company to extend their control over your personal life? It's also reasonable for a company to discriminate against smokers? Where do you draw the line then? Can you discriminate against unhealthy eaters, drinkers? How about people who eat certain types of food like say Mexican food or soul food? Doesn't that just make it racial discrimination by another name? Can't the company argue that they are not hiring black people not out of race, but their unhealthy eating habits? It's a slippery slope as the reason article pointed out.

One of your duals.

What was it you said about WalMart workers? "They can always go work for someone else"?

@Federal Farmer: if it's a right to work state, then yes.

I have no problem hiring and firing based on most of those attributes.

This. In England, I once physically stopped two mainland Euros from cutting in front of me. They were more confused than anything about my anger. Freakin' savages.

Ok, let's say I agree that private employers may use those type of criteria, but what about government jobs? Also, what about the other issues I brought up and what about state mandated smoking bans in restraunts and bars? Can the state dictate to business owners who or what is allowed in their establishments? I also want to point out that your break time is your free time, is it up to the employer to dictate how you use that time? My point is that while smokers "rights" aren't top priority, smokers do have to take a lot if shit at the expense of non-smokers in America compared to Japan which was one of the points in the article. Furthermore, I don't see how smoking reflects on your qualifications for whatever job you are applying for. Shouldn't your resume speak for you and not your personal habits? This is where I take issue, what you do on your own time is your business and the employer shouldn't be able to dictate or encroach on your private life. I feel it's a very fine line that you're willing to allow employers to cross.

Look at marijuana legalization for example. In Colorado it is legal to posses marihuana, yet you can still be fired for failing a drug test. Marijuana stays in your system for thirty days, so just because you smoked marihuana say the night before, doesn't mean you smoked on the job, so where is the line? Do employers get to regulate legal activity?

@Federal Farmer: I agree with you on this and don't support such workplace rules. I just take issue with you speaking of a right to smoke. It's sloppy, especially for a guy on record that if the word isn't in the Constitution, it's not covered. There is no right to smoking, but I personally believe smokers should be accommodated so long as their activities don't interfere with others.

If you are a Federal Worker you can't ingest illegal drugs under any circumstances. They can definitely regulate off duty activity.

Right to smoke may be a streach, but I guess you have a right to do what you want with your body, then there is the 9th amendment.

Show us where smoking is mentioned in the Constitution.

Ninth amendment.

Yes, you have that right until it interferes with the rights of somebody else not to breath your exhaust. At any rate, discussing employment, there is the matter of free association, wherein an employer is free not to associate with you. Any company where I have a voice in hiring decisions won't say no smoking on your own time. But there is no rights violation if I do decide to use that as a filter.

So should the government bar employers from requiring not smoking as a condition of employment?

I'd be open to that argument; I'm just curious what you think.

Not sure who you are asking, but I don't really see smokers as a protected class. So even though I don't think it should be a condition of employment, I don't see a role for government intervention.

Sorry, that question was for Federal Farmer. You posted while I was composing...

Nope, sorry. Federal Farmer says that unless the exact word appears in the Constitution, the right does not apply.

You're going to have to do better.

Nope.

Yup.

http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/2585315/

Guess Federal Farmer is a statist. That's the label for people who believe in implied powers, right?

I don't believe in implied powers, but I've pointed out twice and now a third time where in the Constitution rights that are not specifically mentioned are contained. It's in the ninth and tenth amendments. It's not my fault that garamet is incapable of reading and understanding the English language.

So you are using an argument that you yourself didn't buy when I used it! If you review the thread Garamet linked, you'll see yourself arguing against the position you've taken here.

Do you understand the difference between powers and rights? Again, garamet's and now your inability to comprehend English is phenomenal.

I comprehend you entirely. If it's "yes" on Tuesday, it's "no" on Sunday. Or is it odd-numbered versus even-numbered days? Or both? Or do you flip-flop every time you realize that not only are you losing the argument, but you had no real argument to begin with?

I'm not losing an argument. You claim I'm a flip flopper by pointing to a thread where I said there's no such thing as implied powers. I then went on to say that the only powers the government has are the ones enumerated in the Constitution. This is what I believe to be a true statement. Then in this thread, you asked me to show you were the right to smoke is in the Constitution. I pointed to the ninth and later the tenth amendment. Lets look at the ninth amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Now let's break that amendment down.

The enumeration in the Constitution ( whether written in the text of the Constitution or amended to the Constitution, like the Bill of Rights or other amendments), of certain rights(like voting, like free speech etc.), shall (cannot) not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (Rights not written in the text of the Constitution or amended to the Constitution, like putting chemicals in your body, or two men marrying, etc.).

Now let's couple that with the tenth amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Now let's break this one down as well.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution (powers not enumerated in Article 1, Section 3 or written within the text of the constitution.) , nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively(thereby granting the states a wide range of authority limited only by their own state Constitution), or to the people (of the several states).

So if we combine the two, we get rights that are not enumerated in the constitution as long as they don't conflict with state laws. State powers are much more varied, but must not conflict with state Constitutions. In every state that I'm aware of, smoking is legal if you are a certain age, therefore as per the ninth and tenth amendment, you have a right (you are not prohibited, it is a negative right, therefore it reverts to the last sentence of the tenth amendment, the people enjoy the right .) to smoke.

Now the last bit. Enumerated powers of the federal government, as Madison said in Federalist 45, "are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." So my statement about the enumerated powers is true. The thing that trips you up is that you apparently don't understand the difference between federal power and rights of the people. The rights of the people are enumerated, by as I've just shown, are not limited to that enumeration, while government power is limited to those enumerations. This is as it should be, government should be restricted in it's power over the people, however, the people should be free to their endeavors with little restriction. That is the whole point of a government of, for and by the people and it is a balance that must be struck and those are the principles of liberty. So, to sum up, none of my statements are contradictory because I stated that implied powers do not exist. Powers of the government are not the same thing as rights of the people. I never claimed anything about rights being limited to only the Bill of Rights.

I'm sorry, where is the part that demonstrates smoking to be a right? Just point to the sentence or perhaps court ruling that covers this question.

Again: Federal Farmer, what say you to this?

There is no court case, there likely never will be one. That doesn't mean that you don't have the right to smoke. People smoke all the time, it's not prohibited, you are free to smoke anywhere that local ordinances have not banned it. As a human, you have an inherent right to do whatever your body you want, including smoking. Smoking is not written into the text of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or any other amendment as an enumerated right; however, it's not prohibited by the Constitution. State laws only prohibited if you are under a certain age, so you are free to smoke all you want as long as it doesn't interfere with others' rights. Here's another example. I have my ears pierced, is it not my right to pierce my ears? Is it prohibited by law? is it prohibited by the Constitution? The answer to last two are no. There will likely never be a court case concerning this either, but it doesn't mean that I don't have the right to pierce my ears. This is precisely what the ninth amendment was intended to cover, personal liberties.

Now, is smoking a right on the same level as the rights mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, no, they are statutory or legislative right that could possibly fit into the police power of the state. In other words, all rights are not created equal. You have layers of rights; the first layer being natural or inalienable rights. These are right inherited by all of mankind; these are rights alluded to in the DoI, the right of self determination, the right of secession, life, property, liberty etc, these rights are never ceded. The second tier is Constitutional rights, rights enumerated in the Constitution or amended to the Constitution. These are only ceded through the amendment process, not simple legislation. The third tier is the one that people say the following, "it's a free country I can...(spit on the sidewalk, smoke in a building, walk down the street in my underwear, smoke pot in public, have health insurance, etc.)...It's my right." This where people get confused. Yes it is a (somewhat) free country and yes you have the right to do those things as long as they are not prohibited. The are common rights that can be ceded by simple legislation or statutes. These are perfectly within the police power of the state to grant or take. They are ordinary actions of people throughout their lives. This where the tenth amendment applies and come into direct conflict with each other or in the case of states like Colorado that are legalizing marijuana, they coexist peacefully. The citizens of Colorado have exercised their tenth amendment right to implement their ninth amendment. The same could be said about states like Maryland that have legalized gay marriage.

Can the state ban cigarette smoking, I'm not exactly sure, but I'd imagine it would not go well as it didn't do well with alcohol prohibition. We now have a Constitutionally protected right to consume and posses alcohol. Prior to that, were there court cases involving a right to drink, I don't know, there probably were some. That being said, there wasn't any prohibition, so yeah, people were free to drink, it was their right. The third tier of rights is not Constitutionally protected and until there's a SCOTUS decision on smoking or an amendment on smoking, then smoking will always belong in the third tier and subject to statutes and legislation.

I think people should be hired on their merit, not their personal habits. I can envision a scenario where businesses could take that practice too far. I laid out such a scenario where an employer could claim he doesn't want to hire people who eat certain foods because they are unhealthy. The employer could effectively discriminate against minorities and poor people under the guise of being "health conscious". Under that scenario, it may be prudent for the state to step in and put a stop to it, but that would be a case by case basis and would likely lead to an excess and abuse of power as it always does. I would likely be opposed to that type of power, but that's not to say I agree that businesses should discriminate against people for personal habits because that too could lead to business abusing that and allow them to interfere in every aspect of one's life.

So is it your view that workplace smoking laws are unconstitutional?