Are non-smoking laws constitutional?

A big laugh out loud to the all the responses. I'm sure you drive a car, purchase products that were made and transported by things that produce toxins as byproducts, do not compost or recycle every little thing you can, buy products that promote deforestation, animal abuse, etc.

God forbid someone smokes a cigarette. Get off your ****ing pedestal. If I want to light up outside or in a business that shares a similar mindset, I should have every right. If you don't like it, don't go to that establishment. I smoke casually (3-5 cigarettes in a week).

To the asker, unfortunately the loudest people are normally the ones heard. The people that feel their rights supercede others rights. You don't have a right to unpolluted air/environment. If you did then 90-95% of the industry in this country would cease to exist.

Just as a point, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are part of the Declaration of Independence, which, while an important document in our nation's history is in fact legally a letter to the King of England and has no lawful standing.

The applicable phrase in the preamble to the Constitution (which is a legal document) is: promote the general Welfare, can has been construed to mean that the government can make laws that are intended to protect the health of individuals and society as a whole.

Depends.

Originally, the Constitution only applied to the Federal government. The Supreme Court used the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply many, but by no means all, of the Constitutional protections to the states.

You'd have a hard time making the case that the constitution forbids smoking bans...though many such bans could be seen as violating the 9th amendment's implied rights. However, even then, it would only apply to federal smoking bans. State bans would be iffy, but no big deal...and local bans (like ones in individual communities or cities) are absolutely fine.

Smoking is not a right, its a choice. Its not fair to the people who have enough sense to not get involved with it.

I will agree that california is trying to pass a stupid law. I would much rather be in the company of someone smoking outdoors then indoors.

I agree with the first person! It's not fair to the non-smokers who choose not to smoke for their health. Then there are all these smokers poisoning us! Smokers CHOOSE to smoke, they can stop any time if they really put their mind to it. Non-smokers cannot choose to stop breathing. SO I think it's totally fair! They should be allowed to do whatever they want in their homes, but in public no way! I don't want cancer from someone else nasty habit.

There is nothing worse than enjoying the sounds and smells of nature, and then getting a terrible whiff of someone's nasty smoke.

3 of my grandparents died from smoking so it's a pretty sensitive subject for me.

You've got to be kidding.

Doing cocaine makes me happy, does that mean it should be legal?

Oh, and by the way, there is no "Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" in the constitution.

There's no constitutional right to smoke. And state and local government certainly has the right to control the places where people can pollute the air we breath with dangerous carcinogens.

Have you noticed any being overturned by appeals courts?

where in the Constitution are the people granted the right to poison other people?........it is poisoning.....cancer..it kills people.