While there have been plenty of law suits against various smoking bans, to date not one has been completely successful. There is a reason for this poor record.
As long as secondhand smoke is considered a health hazard, litigation, and even legislative attempts to roll back smoking bans will generally fail. In an era where a (perverted) concept of health is society’s highest value, arguments based on liberty, property rights, or economic considerations will fail. Until the scientific fraud, that is the only foundation upon which smoking bans are built, is addressed head-on, smoking bans will continue. The smoking ban litigants should take a page from a man who is tackling the global warming hoax the correct way.
John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, wants to sue Al Gore for promoting a fraud. While it is unlikely that a suit against the most notorious global warming huckster will ever be filed, Coleman’s stunt can be applied seriously to smoking bans. What Coleman wants is an actual debate. Just as the tobacco control industry will not debate tobacco issues with opponents, the global warming confidence racketeers will not debate the science, methodology, or evidence surrounting anthropogenic climate change. A law suit would compel the grifters to put their credibility on the record.
"Since we can’t get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I’m confident that the advocates of ‘no significant effect from carbon dioxide’ would win the case."
While Coleman may lack standing to launch a suit against Al Gore or any number of the "scientists" who promote global warming, business people from coast to coast do have standing to sue over smoking ban laws that unjustly appropriate their property and inhibit their livelihoods. So far suits against smoking bans have focused on legal parsing or on issues involving constitutionality. Such efforts have not overturned smoking bans.
Going after the science, with a bankroll of millions sufficient to counter our very rich enemies effectively, is ultimately the only way to prevail judicially, while advancing the truth in the public sphere is even more important. There is no evidence that secondhand smoke poses a health hazard to anyone. Put the anti-smoking charlatans under oath before a judge and demand the evidence that leads to smoking bans. It will not be produced because it cannot be produced. The truth will out, in the end, if we make it so with all the effective means and measures we can gather.