KELOLAND.com | SD Smoking Ban Challenged In Lawsuit

KELOLAND.com | SD Smoking Ban Challenged In Lawsuit.

I knew it was a matter of time before this law would be tested in court.

While I am against the smoking ban, for the reasons cited in the story.

Rick Law alleges in his lawsuit that the ban violates the rights of private property owners by restricting their business decisions.

The will of the people should not be ignored.  I would favor repealing this law and replacing it with one that would require signs or something along those lines.

21 Replies to “KELOLAND.com | SD Smoking Ban Challenged In Lawsuit”

  1. Janet

    “I would favor repealing this law and replacing it with one that would require signs or something along those lines.”

    What? Explain what that means.

    1. MC Post author

      How about a sign on the front door that states smoking is allowed in the establishment. People can decide for themselves if they want to go in or not.

      I do like the idea the establishments are trying to move those that do smoke, away from the front entrances.

    1. wow

      Yes, and where are those people??? Are they the people who come in for a hamburger and a tap during happy hour once a week and then leave ? Meanwhile the former steady customers are down the street at a bar who flagrantly breaks the law with no punishment incurred. Yah, you tell me where those 70% who banned smoking are. Are they in nursing homes, at home, in dorm rooms, or where ?? I aint seeing the support now that they have interfered with my and my friend’s business. They have killed revenue in many of our businesses across SD, so we can make 10% cuts because of our state shortfall and next year maybe we can make a 20% cuts across the board as we continue to do everything to destroy business, tourism, economic development and what have you.

  2. Duh

    Interesting angle. The will of the people said NO smoking. However, what about the rights of the business owners to dictate what goes on in their businesses. Public locations are different and the people have a right to say what goes on there, but private businesses? I’m for the ban but this is again an interesting angle.

    1. Stin

      Interesting angle? Please tell me you’re being sarcastic/joking. Business owners rights was the opposition’s entire platform. Do you not recall seeing the gaudy “NO ON 12: It’s about freedom” signs everywhere? Don’t get me wrong, I was for the ban as well. Just wanted to clear up that this isn’t a ground breaking idea by any means.

  3. caheidelberger

    “restricting business decisions” — by that logic, we overturn every environmental regulation, every zoning and permit and tax law… a desirable outcome to some readers here, I know, but still not the rock-solid legal position that will win in court. Rick Law is the best misnomer of the day.

    1. Independent

      Apples and oranges, smoking and the dumping of mass quantities of toxic waste into the envirionment. But it makes for good reading. How about this angle, actually it’s a proven fact. Smokers are leass of a burden on our medical system in the long run because they die sooner than non-smokers. Non-smokers linger in nursing homes bleeding the system dry. So much for all the hyperbole the antis were spouting about the financial medical cost relief their coveted bill would provide. If people want to smoke it’s their choice and they incur the associated risk. If people chose to enter or work in establishments where smoking is allowed it’s also their choice. We should be free to chose.

  4. larry kurtz

    This is an interesting case. Mr. Law knows that it seems like a conflict of interest that the AG is defending this clumsy voter-initiated law knowing that South Dakota is bound by the tobacco settlement to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke as it profits from said taxed product while a majority of voters have virtually created a chilling effect on Mr. Laws’ right to due process.

    Does this seem ironic to anyone else that this looks like nannystatery as Mr. Law suggests because legislators didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to write better law yet now choose to inflict unjust penalties on doctor/patient relationships?

  5. William

    Crap!! You’re going to tell me NOW that cigarettes are BAD FOR ME?? Like I’ve been living in a CAVE and hadn’t noticed the 45 YEAR war on smoking??

    Nationally, the smoking rate remains at about 20%, regardless of taxes, prohibitions, or social ostracization. That’s probably about the “end point” where political plans meet reality.

    Any further measures to restrict smoking are facing an increasingly hostile environment, as many of the “anti-smoking” measures COST MONEY, and taxpayers are increasingly unwilling to pay the price for “feel good” legislation that diminishes their tax revenue.

    1. wow

      Well said! BUT let’s all beat our heads against the wall and try to get an idea as to how we can create more revenue. Right……

  6. Les

    Internet sales tax and pot sales tax would heal SD’s current problem if we don’t kill all the other taxes on ignorance we’ve become so dependent on.

  7. Name

    idiots all of you. the government legislates and restricts our freedom on many levels. because WE are the government. we get to decide what kind of society we live in. we don’t allow speeding because it’s dangerous. we don’t allow unlicensed doctors to cut into you, because it’s dangerous. we don’t allow smoking in public places because it’s dangerous. all of these restrictions impact somebody who wants to make a buck selling or doing this dangerous thing. this is not anarchy.

    1. DDC

      Why do we allow people to overeat? It’s dangerous. Why do we allow people to drink alcohol (or coffee)? It’s dangerous. Why do we allow people to drive? It’s the most dangerous thing most of us do.

      1. Name

        Message “Why do we allow people to overeat?” They are only inflicting obesity upon themselves, it won’t do harm those around them (except when they end up on Medicaid)
        “Why do we allow people to drink alcohol?” They are only inflicting danger upon themselves (until they drive or hit someone-both against the law)
        Smoking in a public place, endangers the health of those around you. Plain and simple.

        1. DDC

          People smoking inside a bar only “endanger” those people that choose to go inside of that bar.

          I can’t stand smokey bars, so I make the decision to avoid them most of the time. Do you think so little of people’s intellect to think that others aren’t capable of making that decision for themselves?