Thoughts? Opinions? Do you think this move is increasing the freedoms of the house reps? I’m personally pretty baffled by the move but I’d like to hear your take. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/smoking-capitol-house-republican-majority-b2261232.html?utm_source=reddit.com
Posted Jan 14, 2023, 1:53 PM UTC
Disagree with this. This is a case of where your rights can infringe on someone else’s rights.
I mean that’s the way I interpret it. But a lot of folks in the comments are telling me that if you don’t like secondhand smoke you need to find a new job?
This is a topic where I can see conservatives butting heads with each other. If one really wants to go there, you could point out that the constitution does not guarantee the right to smoke in the workplace, the same way some conservatives argue the constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion. To my view, the compromise to the right to smoke vs the right to breathe unpolluted air is what we already have in place: smoking areas outdoors. There is no compromise in the other direction. I also think that in terms of “rights” there is a pecking order. Clean air is needed by the body to live. A cigarette is not.
I think most of them are just being edgy, I can’t tell if that’s better or worse.
That too. I’m really not into the whole “edgelord/do it to own the libs” shit.
Except Roe was determined based on the right to privacy implicit in the Bill of Rights under amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, and 9 (Griswold v. Connecticut) and amendment 14 (Justice Harlan in Griswold using precedent from Poe v. Ullman, later in Eisenstadt v. Baird, Lawrence v. Texas)
It's important to note that do have the authority to ignore prior precedent, however the reasoning used by Alito is as quoted: procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution's text or in our Nation's history.
Fundamental rights are those granted by the Constitution either explicitly or (under the 9th) implicitly. Privacy fits this description and Roe was decided through the use of the fundamental right to privacy
So he is saying "Roe is wrong" but not providing any argument (or a factually incorrect one that if he doesn't realise it's incorrect makes him woefully unqualified for his position) for why Roe is actually wrong in extending the right to privacy (medical privacy).
In order to violate a fundamental right a law must pass Strict Scrutiny by being "sufficiently further a compelling government interest" and "be naturally tailored to further such interest"
What "compelling government interest" does the erosion of medical privacy accomplish here and is it narrowly tailored to prevent further erosion of the right to privacy? In my opinion no. In the majority opinion the justices named various other court cases unrelated to medical privacy that would also be suspect to reversal.
Edit: I'm not even an American citizen. I just hold LPR and study law textbooks for fun
Edit 2: it's important to note that Alito's decision also puts into question the validity of Griswold, Poe, and Eisenstadt.
Yours is an undoubtedly thorough legal analysis, but I’m approaching this from the perspective of an average American who doesn’t know any of the landmark cases that preceded Roe. Ask an average American about the constitutional aspect, and they will interpret the “right” as being something explicitly written. It’s a terribly lazy perspective and not one that has actual basis in the reality of how our constitution works, but it is an argument that an average person will use. It’s the same reason that they have been saying lately “well why didn’t anyone move to codify Roe into law?”
That's like a "friend" telling me if I was getting sexually harassed at work, it's fine - I should just find a new job.
[removed]
Reminds me of people refusing to wear masks during a pandemic. Yeah, its technically legal not to but its a mahor dick move to risk getting someone else sick.
everyone should know that smoking should be done outdoors
Honestly this is hilarious. Glad they’re worried about the important things.
congress or the reddit users concerned with people smoking a legal product? `
No one is concerned about them smoking cigarettes, I’m concerned that they’re more focused on special privileges for themselves than trying to do anything for the country.
sounds like you are a bit concerned. along with most of the posters in this thread.
Whatever makes you feel better 🤷♂️, have a nice sunday
I think it's a terrible idea and I don't understand why it was needed. It will add additional costs to the tax payer as these historic buildings will need proper ventilation for it and will later need terminal cleaning to remove the damage.
Can’t read any details of the article. But, I don’t think it’s a good idea.
Don't care. If it does not cost the taxpayers extra money, it's like my wife and I deciding we cannot walk on our hands in the bathroom - weird, but it's our business and noone else's. If it costs extra in some ways however, than it's wasting tax money, which is called an avarage workday in state administration, f them.
Smoke remediation for an average apartment can cost between $3k-$12k. How much do you think it will cost to hire specialized contractors to get the smoke odor out of offices in a highly secured historical building?
Rule 7 is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
I am okay if they smoke but I hope they will not do it around others in their office.
Of course, but if they smoke before someone comes into their office there will still be smoke in the office, if other people have to go in. It’s indoors dude,
Ummm bello based department??
I am more concerned with legislators that have booze in their office and are on prescription meds for moods like xanax and stuff. numbing themselves before they make horrible decisions that penalize the citizens or spending us into collapse.
spending us into collapse
Then why the fuck would you ever vote for a republican‽ Empirically they are the ones who drive up govt spending the most. Democrats have empirically lowered govt spending btw. This isn't a "both parties spend too much" because democrats tend to lower the spending deficit while republicans increase it.
[removed]
[removed]
I’d just keep a pocket fan with me and whip it out as soon as they light up. If they enjoyed the smoke the first time, why not enjoy it a second time!
Brilliant.
[removed]
You know two or three offices will have their bongs out.
Would they? This is a federal building correct? Under federal jurisdiction?
looking at the actions and statments only of congress over the last 20 years would honestly be suprised to find out some are using drugs
I feel like Congress has more of a coke/meth vibe than a weed one.
Meth? I mean coke for sure,
No of course they do, they’re definitely using it haha. I just meant that despite it being legalized in DC, I don’t know that it would be legal on federal property
The enforcement agencies don't have jurisdiction over the Hill.
Congress is the sole expositor of its own rules—and that's a very good thing.
Imagine President Trump having enforcement control over Congress' physical space...
Hemp is legal, they could smoke that. It smells the same and isn't a controlled substance. So the republicans that hate Marijuana wouldn't be able to stop that.
God I wish they’d let me smoke cigars in my office 😓
To me it’s more , special rules for special people. Whether or not you agree or disagree with allowing smoking, can we all agree that no one else can vote to change their workplace rules and it becomes law. No one else in America is allowed to smoke at work, whatever happened to no one is above the law? If it’s good enough for the Capitol it’s good enough for everyone.
As someone who grew up with parents who smoked (and one that still does), I don't think smokers realize how much their filthy habit affects others. Especially in doors. Besides just collateral second hand smoke, wherever they are inside is a going to smell like an ash tray, and you're likely never getting that smell fully out without replacing or bleaching the carpet and walls.
This feels like such a weird thing to do in 2023... Likely enacted by people who wish we were back in the 1980s.
For years I was like, why do my eyes always hurt at my dad’s house?
My mom at least had the courtesy of smoking outside. And my dad gave it up completely. Into adulthood though, and no longer living with them, she still smokes in her car (our little ones are forbidden from riding in it), but at least she still smokes outside at her place.
I smoked for twenty years on and off. I tried quitting on my own, didn't work, tried the patch, that didn't work, tried Chantix, and that was the closest to working, but what wound up working was getting married. Seven years of getting nagged by my wife about it finally pushed me past the point of waning to hear it. I remember three years ago I was going to try to wean myself off of them, smoke a few less every day, but to do that I'd have had to buy another pack. I just decided to try not doing that and go cold turkey.
It's been three years this month. It IS a disgusting habit. Doing Uber I take smokers and potheads all the time and it drives me nuts.
I’m very proud of you.
Smoking is really f***ing hard habit/addiction to quit.
I am still amazed by people who successfully do it.
I used to have a pretty bad smartphone addiction (10 -14 hour/day screen times), and this last year, I finally took back control because I wanted to have more of life back so I could be there for people I loved. It’s genuinely very difficult, that first week to first month.
But now I am averaging (1-1.5 hours), mostly spent on FaceTime calls and texts with loved ones and responding to work and school emails.
[deleted]
Tons of people are able to smoke at work lmao. Think about what you’re saying.
Genuine question: In what indoor workplaces are Americans allowed to smoke?
Indoor? Not many. Rules vary, and it’s possible to smoke indoors in some places if all employees smoke, or if the total number of employees is some low number.
Can you provide, like, one example?
We're talking about smoking indoors (at a workplace) in this post, so I don't see the relevance of outdoor smoking to this discussion. Pretty much everyone agrees that people should be allowed to smoke outdoors at a distance that doesn't expose others to secondhand smoke.
nO oNe iS aBoVe tHe lAw.
It's literally the law.
It is , and having a different set of laws for our small Governing”elite” is fundamentally wrong.
So you believe any legal exceptions or separation of powers that doesn't include categorical equality is fundamentally wrong?
Enforcement agencies don't have jurisdiction over the Hill and that's a good thing. You really want the President to be able to call in the fire Marshall and kick everyone out of Congress. Give Pres. Trump that power and get back to me. What about judicial immunity or any of the dozens of other exceptions?
You're being a child.
I think he's saying that letting yourself smoke in your own office while banning smoking in all other offices is hypocritical and has nothing to do with separation of powers and this high and mighty attitude you're taking.
Enacting laws that treat yourself in a manner that is more advantageous to yourself and a small group only, and apply only to a small elite is an anathema the rule of law. If people can’t smoke in their offices because of a law you pass, and then you exempt yourself from those same rules are hypocrisy at it most blatant. I completely understand the separation of powers, but Congress should be prohibited from passing laws that they themselves are exempt from. Before the citizens come back with pitch forks and torches.
This is a similar argument that people use for the police, that they shouldn't have to obey the laws they arrest other people for. That and things like qualified immunity so they can break laws with impunity.
It’s a stupid law, disgusting law that really doesn’t make sense. By all means smoke, it’s legal. I sure can’t stop you. But I’d consider my colleagues smoking indoors at work infringing on MY freedoms. Secondhand smoke is unhealthy, and I can’t just avoid it without quitting. It seems like a law just meant to piss people off, I’ll bet the one that banned smoking in the capitol was enacted by someone the republicans hate.