I dislike smoking - I'm not a rabid anti-smoker, but think it is a filthy and foolish habit. My maternal granddad picked up the habit in WWII, managed to survived four years of hazardous duty, and then died from lung cancer a decade ago. His wife still lives, but suffers from lung damage. The evidence on second-hand smoke is still a bit soft, but it is highly likely that her suffering was caused by second-hand smoke (she never smoked herself). My brother has been smoking since college and I expect I'll lose him to lung cancer in a few decades unless medical science can get ahead of the problems caused by smoking.
Given this, it may surprise you to know that I am concerned at how the government is infringing on the rights of smokers. The rights of smokers are being slowly trounced upon in ways that freedom loving Americans should abhor. This is a particularly interesting issue for me as many different "rights" conflict with one another.
The right of an individual to smoke, drink, or otherwise harm himself with legally obtained products so long as he does not harm others.
The right of an individual to avoid being harmed by others (and while the science is still soft about the carcinogenic properties of second-hand smoke, it is indisputable that many people suffer when exposed to second-hand smoke).
The property rights of the store owner.
The rights of government to regulate.
For the most part, the free market can handle this conflict. I am very concerned about local governments telling property owners (usually restaurant owners) that they cannot allow smoking on their property. My community has no regulations on this and we have no problems. More and more local restaurants are converting to smoke-free facilities, but they are doing this because of local demand. Given a choice, many patrons – including myself – will spend their money in smoke-free restaurants instead of restaurants that cater to both smokers and non-smokers. Smoke rarely respects the boundary between the smoking and non-smoking sections and I've had the taste of a few good meals diminished by the odor of cigarette smoke. So I vote with my pocketbook and give preference to smoke-free businesses. I also let restaurant owners know why they receive (or do not receive) my business.
As you would expect from a free market, there are still a number of restaurants in the area where smoking is allowed (mostly bars, but also some nice dining establishments). As more restaurants become smoke-free, I've noticed smokers make up a greater and greater percentage of the clientele in the restaurants that allow smoking. I am glad smokers still have a place to go smoke and eat in peace. I may think they are making a stupid decision to smoke, but so long as cigarettes remains legal, I support peoples' right to smoke in peace.
I admit the government has some place in this discussion, but only a limited roll. They are certainly within their rights to ban smoking from government buildings – after all, they are the property owner. They are certainly with their rights to regulate the sale of tobacco. However, they have no right to forbid other property owners from allowing people from using a legal product in accordance with the product's design.
To paraphrase Pastor Niemöller
First they came for the smokers, but I was not a smoker – so I said nothing. Then they came for the junk food eaters, but I was not obese – so I did nothing. Then came the video gamers owners, but I was not a video gamer. And then they came for the registered gun owners, but I was not a registered gun owner – so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me.
So let's stand up for the smokers, folks, before they come for you and me.
You have raised three points.
1) The government telling property owners what they can and cannot do with their own property
2) A proposal to raise the cost of cigarettes nation-wide
3) The difference between smoking and suicide
As you gathered, we strongly disagree with the first issue. I don't think I’m missing your point that this is a minor request to ask of smokers, I just think this is an unimportant point. Smokers may disagree with you, but whether this issue is a minor or a major point is a side issue. The point that concerns me is giving up even more power to the government. So long as cigarettes are legally sold in the US, the government has no right to tell private property owners when they can use legal substances and when they cannot.
If the government really sees cigarette smoking as a major health issue (and they can make a very strong case for this), then they have other remedies. They can ban it entirely. They may tax it. However, once a government adds a new power to its bag of tricks, it continues to find new ways to use it. My concern is that Americans are acting like the wild hogs of Okefenokee Swamp (http://www.geocities.com/Ca...) and these restrictions on smokers are just another piece of the pen.
Your second point – the proposal to raise cigarettes taxes across the nation – would probably reduce smoking rates and increase the health of those who could not afford to keep smoking. However, I doubt it would reduce the gang-related problems. It would merely export them to the rest of the US. Smugglers would still import cheap cigarettes and their market would be all 50 States. It is very difficult for law enforcement to police smugglers when the smuggled product may be legally used (e.g., if a policeman sees someone smoking dope, he can bust him for breaking the law. However, if a policeman sees an adult smoking a cigarette, he has no way to know if the cigarette was legally purchased or illegally purchased). BTW, I am not sure that those who say smokers consume more than their fair share of government services are correct. Sure, they are less productive citizens (studies have shown they take more sick days than non-smokers) and usually die sooner. However, this also saves the government significant money since smokers collect much less in Social Security benefits than non-smokers because they die earlier. Of course, this leads to your last point.
You called smoking [slow suicide] and wondered why I defend it yet oppose suicide. In addition to the time frame, there are other key differences between smoking and suicide. The most obvious one is intent. And while studies have shown that each cigarette reduces a person's expected lifespan by 5 minutes, I would hardly classify engaging in risky behavior as deliberately suicidal behavior. It is certainly a risk to one's health, but so is overeating (http://www.sdearthtimes.com...).
The bottom line is that I defend smoking because I believe in the rule of law and the rights given to people in the Constitution. Not just laws and rights supporting what I like, but the idea of rights themselves. It is currently legal to smoke, so the rights of individual property owners to allow smoking on their property should be supported.
I particularly like your adaption of Pastor Niemöller. I am very disturbed by the way that many anti-smokers ignore the property rights of restaurant and other business owners. New York is attempting to shut down private clubs which allow smoking. If anti-smokers get their way smoking will be disallowed in all public buildings, leading to the absurdity that one cannot smoke in a tobacco shop or a cigar club.
Government power is always oppressive. We need a much better excuse than this to invoke it.
Yours,
Wince
recent post on
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com
might interest you
This is down right dangerous and infringement of personal rights or maybe the US is turning communist. Or maybe even kill more people while under the influence prescribed Zanax. Or simpley crossing the road to smoke. My grandfather never smoked a cig. in his life but died of infazema (please ignore my spelling)at age 65. My dad smoked 45 years and died of colon cancer in 2001 at age 71 with perfect lungs. I bet you 99.9 percent of the non smokers drive a car. So if no smoking is implemented then that should mean no driving to work either. How many packs of carcengines does a car put out every minute compared to a single smoker once an hour.
Thoughts on Smoking
As you know I live in Florida. You may also be aware
that recently Florida banned ALL smoking in establishments
where food is served, a measure that I wholeheartedly
approve of.
Many people who defend smokers “rights” completely miss
the point. The government (or restuarant owner, or whomever)
are not asking the smokers to stop smoking. They are not
interfering with the smokers' rights to kill themselves.
Thay are simply asking them to refrain from smoking for
one hour, while they eat. Personally, I don't see this as
being that major of a request. If a person cannot go
without a cigarette for sixty minutes WHILE THEY ARE EATING
then they have some serious addiction issues and, frankly,
probably bigger problems.
My personal preferrence is that taxes on tobacco products
be raised to somewhere in the neighborhood of $3-4 per
PACK to help offset some of the tremendous medical costs
associated with this disgusting habit. Of course this has
spawned “butt” wars in New York as gangs via for territory to
sell out-of-state cigarettes. So, make it nation-wide and the
problem goes away. I would also like to see more business
involvement where businesses off incentives to employees who
quit smoking, rather than them offering designated smoking
areas outside of offices.
My grandmother lost a lung to cancer after smoking for
40-something years. My father still smokes a pipe.
You and I have had discussion about suicide being illegal
in the past, so why would you defend slow suicide and
condemn fast suicide?