Right to smoke?

[Avatar4321]

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?

 

[Gunny]

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?

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[dmp]

Citizens have a right to do ANYTHING - until a law is made which forbids it.

 

[Annie]

Citizens have a right to do ANYTHING - until a law is made which forbids it.

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[dmp]

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.

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

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?

 

[dmp]

Now, make cigarettes illegal, that would be ok. But those pesky taxes...

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

Probably quite well. Psychopaths do not have a conscience.

 

[Gem]

I have no problem with the government taking into considering the will of the people, banning smoking outdoors or in public areas that are not privately owned.

However, I take real issue with the government telling privately owned businesses owners they can't allow people to smoke in their privately owned establishments. It isn't a great leap from there to people can't smoke in their homes...

Its a greater leap...but still not too great, in my opinion, to...you can't smoke in public because its bad for other people...in fact, the restaurant shouldn't be serving bad food to people because its bad for them...so public restaurant owner...not only can people not smoke in your restaurant...but just like smokers push their smoke in the face of others...YOU push appetizing fried foods in the face of others...you must stop.

You might counter with "Yes, but people have the right to buy or not buy that food." And while I agree wholeheartedly, I would counter right back with, "Yes...they also had the right to go into a smoky bar or not...but the government has deemed that they can not make that choice for themselves...so how long till we take the choice of healthy vs. nonhealthy food choices away from the people as well?"

We, as a society, need to stop LEGISLATING morality and simply use what systems our society already has in place to deal with these issues. If a restaurant is smoky, only smokers and people who don't mind the smell will go there, if that is enough business for the business owners, that restaurant will stay open for that clientele, if it is not enough money for him, he will make changes - either adding a non-smoking section or banning smoking altogether.

I think the anti-smoking people are going to be shocked and amazed when their whining and push for legislation turns around and bites them on the ass...while the rest of us will be sitting their saying "I'd say I told you so...but it wouldn't do a damn bit of good."

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'm not sure I like the choices..

I think smokers have the same rights as any other person in this country: to do what they want so long as it doesn't impose on someone else's freedoms.

The debate is over whether and where smoking imposes on someone else's freedom.

 

[Annie]

I'm not sure I like the choices..

I think smokers have the same rights as any other person in this country: to do what they want so long as it doesn't impose on someone else's freedoms.

The debate is over whether and where smoking imposes on someone else's freedom.

So, anyone can claim that being within a mile of smoke makes them ill. Perhaps your next door neighbor is cutting his grass and catches a whiff of smoke coming out of your home. He can claim a right to make you stop smoking.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So, anyone can claim that being within a mile of smoke makes them ill. Perhaps your next door neighbor is cutting his grass and catches a whiff of smoke coming out of your home. He can claim a right to make you stop smoking.

And in both cases he would be an extremist loon who should be ignored. I didn't think I needed to say that common sense should be a major consideration in the debate...

 

[Annie]

And in both cases he would be an extremist loon who should be ignored. I didn't think I needed to say that common sense should be a major consideration in the debate...

Not really. The whole march of anti-smoking has been a case in point of the loons leading. Whether we are talking of inconsiderate smokers or anti-smoking zealots.

 

[5stringJeff]

Is the concept of liberty a foreign one these days? In the abscence of a law, if people want to smoke, let them. If a state wants to ban smoking altogether, it's within their rights under the Constitution. If a law is passed that bans smoking somewhere, smokers should work to change the law.

 

[Annie]

Is the concept of liberty a foreign one these days? In the abscence of a law, if people want to smoke, let them. If a state wants to ban smoking altogether, it's within their rights under the Constitution. If a law is passed that bans smoking somewhere, smokers should work to change the law.

The courts will not overturn this stuff. Not a fight worth fighting, but other things will follow then we'll see where it goes.

 

[5stringJeff]

The courts will not overturn this stuff. Not a fight worth fighting, but other things will follow then we'll see where it goes.

I'm not talking about courts overturning the law. I'm talking about smokers working to elect representatives who will repeal the law.

 

[Annie]

I'm not talking about courts overturning the law. I'm talking about smokers working to elect representatives who will repeal the law.

Again, the issue just wouldn't warrant that type of activism. Now, when someone starts complaining about the smell of cut grass, curry cooking, etc. Then perhaps?