Well, I have to disagree that it's a takings issue. For taking to apply, in this case (with no overt transfer of title), the government would either have to physically occupy a portion or all of the property, or completely eliminate all economic value of the property through regulation. I suppose you could make an argument that the government was "taking" a pre-existing right, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any court that recognizes property interest in a right to allow an activity on one's property, rather than engaging in that right oneself. Either way, it's not a taking.
Due process is a separate argument in relation to fifth and fourteenth amendments. I suppose you could make a substantive due process argument, but again, no court is going to recognize a public right to smoke as fundamental. Perhaps in one's own home... but not likely in a commercial setting. I don't really think it's taking away a bar owner's rights to disallow customers from engaging in a particular action. Much like how it's perfectly fine for a state or local government to prohibit extremely loud noise.
I really have a hard time coming up with a real, well-reasoned argument that this type of law is an infringement on a property right. Property rights generally are the rights to utilize your property and the right to exclude others from your property. States and cities have long had the right to regulate behavior and activity on property, such as sales of porn, nude dancers, and the prohibition of nuisances that interfere with other property. Frankly, I think those sorts of prohibitions are far more of an infringement on personal rights than prohibiting public smoking (except nuisances, public and private). Establishments open to the public have long been held to different standards than private homes. For instance, fire codes, zoning, health and safety standards of restaurants, etc.
The other side of the equation seems to be ignored - the rights of employees and other patrons to be free from inhaling a potentially dangerous carcinogen. Particularly with these tough times, it's hard to say to an employee: hey, if you're allergic to smoke or if it makes you sick, oh well, just quit if you don't like it!
I think this law is reasonable because it allows one to smoke all they want - in a way that doesn't effect others. I'm a libertarian and I don't think this law is in conflict with personal rights. Your rights end where my nose begins. I don't see a rational way of coming up with a right to smoke that overrides anyone else's right to be free of smoke.
In fact, I think it's is more consistent with strong personal rights, in the same way that dumping pollution into lakes and the air has a real effect on others, but the lack of external costs makes it profitable to pollute. In the same way, smokers pawn part of the "cost," if you will, of their habit on others.
I'd frankly prefer a personal, civil cause of action for subjecting others to second hand smoke without their consent, but I think this law is a good way to achieve the same ends due to problems with proving causation, damages, etc., that are potentially years down the road.
Parent
