Right to smoke?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Avatar4321, Aug 7, 2006.

?

Is there a right to smoke?

  1. Yes, people have a right to smoke and the state can't do anything to stop it

    4 vote(s)
    33.3%
  2. No, if the people choose to regulate/ban smoking they can whether its a good or bad idea

    8 vote(s)
    66.7%
  1. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,526
    Thanks Received:
    8,157
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,145
    I got into an argument with a military guy who claims that he has a "right to smoke."

    I pointed out that regardless of whether smoking bans were a good idea or just plain stupid. No right to smoke exists. There is nothing in either federal or state constitution that suggests a right to smoke exists.

    He then turned around and claimed that since he served in the military to protect his right to smoke there was nothing the people could do to take that right away. Basically saying he was immune from criticism because he served in the military. (You military guys know I love you all for what you do, but it irritates the heck out of me when people try to immunize themselves from criticisms on the claim that they served when it has nothing to do with the discussion)

    So I created this poll to see what everyone else thinks.

    The purpose of the poll isnt whether smoking bans are a bad idea or a smart idea. The poll is focused on whether the state has the right to do so regardless.

    If you vote that there is a right to smoke, then how is this "right to smoke" different from the "right to an abortion" which is also not in any Constitution?
     
  2. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I guess if you remove the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness you could be correct."

    At teh same time, the state has the right to regulate anything the Federal government does not, and "the right to smoke" is not specifically written into the US Constitution. The Founding Fathers probably never envisioned what a bunch of whining ninnies we would become.

    As far as my personal opinion goes, it always cracks me up that the most over-zealous nonsmokers with the biggest mouthes are usually shapeless fatasses who are far more likely to die from a massive heart attack or choking on a chicken bone while stuffing their faces than they are "second hand smoke."

    The head anti-smoking knucklehead hear is a fatass that tips the scale at no less than 300 pounds, and drives around in a gas-guzzling, air-polluting Suburban.

    Zealots are always the biggest hypocrites.
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Well if the 'proof is in the pudding' seems that the government can and will ban smoking. Personally, I think that it should have been implemented by private ownership or control of property decisions. For instance, many employers or landlords prohibited smoking on their premises more than 20 years ago.

    Restaurants, bars, etc., should be able to offer being smoke-free or mixed.

    But that is not what the deal is, heck they are now making laws to make it illegal to smoke outside.
     
  4. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    Citizens have a right to do ANYTHING - until a law is made which forbids it.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Agreed. But the government is not supposed to be passing laws that interfer with property rights, parental rights, etc. But they are and there is little to be done about it.
     
  6. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I agree, sorta.' I think business owners should be allowed to decide whether or not they wish to allow smoking, or even offer a non-smoking section. The state should not be involved.

    This is just another example of vocal activism forcing gov't to react to it and implement laws that overreach their authority, IMO.
     
  7. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741

    In our state, "the vote of the people" banned all indoor public smoking.

    Problem is, there are now more idiots in my state than normal, rational people.
     
  8. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    The vote of the people. LOL. Smokers have been so shamed into feeling as if they criminals that they hardly are going to go and vote against the ban.

    Odd isn't it that tobacco smoke didn't bother anyone but the user for centuries until some genius decided that it did for want of an issue.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Smoking is bad, no excuses. I can understand someone refusing to have smoking in their house, in their car, allowing any of their employees to smoke, in their stores, etc. I can understand restaurants, bars, hotels, refusing to allow smoking.

    However, the government is something else again. They tax cigarettes at a rate that outstrips the 'cost of smokers' to the public. Again, that is ok, people choose whether or not to buy. But to ban smoking at public beaches, parks, etc., that seems to be overstepping. Now, make cigarettes illegal, that would be ok. But those pesky taxes...

    Now they are using smoking as basis of child custody, visitation, etc. Now it's smoking, then what?
     
  10. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    That's EXACTLY it!! The Govt says "smoking is bad" yet refused to make the product ILLEGAL beacuse of teh HUGE taxes they take from the sale of the product.

    I really can't understand how those Govt Fockers SLEEP at night. :(
     

Share This Page