Do we really have a right to smoke?

[doublebassmusician]

Importance Of Philosophy

Here's a good place to get started.
Yes, we have the right to smoke (whatever we want.)


Whoops.
We don't have a"right" to smoke. There's no such thing as "the right to smoke". But we do have the right to the pursuit of happiness. If smoking makes us happy, then we "have the right" to do so.

[brianwalden]

Originally Posted by Cigary

Do we have the inalienable right to eat Big Macs till we are rolled out on our gurney? Do we not have the inalienable right of self determination to eat, smoke, drink, breathe or engage in as long as it is not a threat to someone else?

Assuming we do indeed have inalienable rights (ones which come from our human nature rather than being constructs of our social/legal system), then no we absolutely do not have the inalienable rights you mentioned above. It's not a crime against humanity to outlaw Big Macs. I'm sure there are food products that are outlawed in the US; that stuff in Absinthe comes to mind.

And we do not have the inalienable right to do whatever we please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. For example, no one has the inalienable right to act immorally even if they're only hurting themselves. A man and women have the legal right to engage in a consensual adulterous affair (except if there are any states that still have adultery legislation on the books), but not an inalienable right. They are breaking their promises to their spouses and family and abusing their sexuality; they have no right to do so regardless of whether or not they face legal consequences.

Anyway I guess this type of confusion is what I was trying to highlight in my original post. There's two types of rights: Rights which come from our basic human nature (it's debatable whether or not these actually exist) and rights which come from social and legal constructs. Even if we say inalienable human rights indeed exist, I find it tough to believe smoking is one of them. So If all we're saying is that smoking is a legal right, then we're correct but we're not saying much. That right can be taken away as long as the proper methods are used. If my neighbor doesn't like me smoking he can't come over and force me to stop, but he can elect a legislator who will pass a law to say I must stop. Just like that, no more right. I guess this is why I get uncomfortable with the rights argument. It sounds good and gets people all fired up, but I don't think it holds water under closer scrutiny.

[Cigary]

Originally Posted by brianwalden

Assuming we do indeed have inalienable rights (ones which come from our human nature rather than being constructs of our social/legal system), then no we absolutely do not have the inalienable rights you mentioned above. It's not a crime against humanity to outlaw Big Macs. I'm sure there are food products that are outlawed in the US; that stuff in Absinthe comes to mind.

And we do not have the inalienable right to do whatever we please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. For example, no one has the inalienable right to act immorally even if they're only hurting themselves. A man and women have the legal right to engage in a consensual adulterous affair (except if there are any states that still have adultery legislation on the books), but not an inalienable right. They are breaking their promises to their spouses and family and abusing their sexuality; they have no right to do so regardless of whether or not they face legal consequences.

Anyway I guess this type of confusion is what I was trying to highlight in my original post. There's two types of rights: Rights which come from our basic human nature (it's debatable whether or not these actually exist) and rights which come from social and legal constructs. Even if we say inalienable human rights indeed exist, I find it tough to believe smoking is one of them. So If all we're saying is that smoking is a legal right, then we're correct but we're not saying much. That right can be taken away as long as the proper methods are used. If my neighbor doesn't like me smoking he can't come over and force me to stop, but he can elect a legislator who will pass a law to say I must stop. Just like that, no more right. I guess this is why I get uncomfortable with the rights argument. It sounds good and gets people all fired up, but I don't think it holds water under closer scrutiny.

Then we are under whatever whim comes along and you can see throughout history why man has fought back to gain his or her rights. It is my inalienable right to live my life to whatever purpose suits me as long as that does not infringe upon someone elses rights. Do you really want to subordinate your rights to someone telling you what you can eat,,,smoke in your own home,,,,have relations with your wife without benefit of the courts to legislate what position is ok and what position is regarded as illegal,,,I understand your feelings but when you say that it's ok for a legislator to pass a law that infringes upon my rights,,,esp. when our forefathers came over here to deal with this kind of injustice,,,you become one goosestep away from Totalitarianism. I don't have the faith in our juris prudence that you have,,,I have seen too much in the last 50 years that tells me we are going down the same road that the Roman Empire went and we all know how that ended.

Secondly, you have doubts about if we even have rights as a human being,,,our nature. Don't we have an inalienable right to feed ourselves,,,to clothe ourselves,,,to have a place to eat our food,,,to protect our children,,,you see where I am going with this as the list is pretty long.

I don't think I could have said this any better:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 19, Papers 1:315

[CAJoe]

When talking about rights we have to think where does rights come from. Most of the men who wrote the US Constitution belived that men were born with certain unalienable rights that came from our creator. If these rights came from God then man cannot take them away. When these rights are taken from us we have a right to fight back to regain our rights given to us from a higher authority.

As for smoking rights we do have a right to Liberty and Happiness. Sitting down smoking a cigar is a liberty I enjoy and it make me happy. No one has a right to tell me I cannot do it, but on the other hand people have a right for me not to blow smoke in thier face. Federal government should have no right controlling tobacco in any way as it is a States Rights Issue via the 10th amendment. I know the feds try to use the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate smoking but that is not interperting the Constitution right as the 10th amendment pretty much lays it out (same can be said of gun control, health care, etc.). Private property and businesses should have a right to run thier businesses as they wish. If a business decides they want to allow smoking in thier PRIVATE establishment they should be able to. If the employees/customers disagree they can quit/not patronize the business. If we willingly give up the liberty to smoke the government will move on to taking the next liberty, we need to fight them tooth and nail on every front possible. We should not back down. If you give this up what will you give up next?

[brianwalden]

Originally Posted by Cigary

Then we are under whatever whim comes along and you can see throughout history why man has fought back to gain his or her rights.

We're always under whatever whim comes along. Inalienable rights don't stop tyrants, they just make tyrants morally wrong. Only a more powerful tyrant stops a tyrant.

Originally Posted by Cigary

It is my inalienable right to live my life to whatever purpose suits me as long as that does not infringe upon someone elses rights.

Then where do inalienable rights come from? It's my understanding that the classical western view is they come from man's nature (purpose, end, telos, etc). If rights do indeed come from our nature and authorities are morally obligated to respect and defend men's rights, then the logical flipside of that seems to be that man is obligated to live according to his nature.

I am familiar with philosophies that say man has a right to do whatever he wants so long as he's not harming someone else, but as far as I know they don't claim inalienable rights. I think they usually deny any type of absolute truth so they claim rights are social constructs rather than universal.

Originally Posted by Cigary

Do you really want to subordinate your rights to someone telling you what you can eat,,,smoke in your own home,,,,have relations with your wife without benefit of the courts to legislate what position is ok and what position is regarded as illegal,,,I understand your feelings but when you say that it's ok for a legislator to pass a law that infringes upon my rights,,,esp. when our forefathers came over here to deal with this kind of injustice,,,you become one goosestep away from Totalitarianism. I don't have the faith in our juris prudence that you have,,,I have seen too much in the last 50 years that tells me we are going down the same road that the Roman Empire went and we all know how that ended.

I think we're speaking two different languages even though our political views are similar. I don't trust our goverment to do much more than keep law and order. I do not want to let someone tell me what I can eat and smoke in my own home. When I said it would be ok for a legislator to do so I meant there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it in the moral sense, not that such a thing is politically prudent. I refer back to the 18th ammendment which established Prohibition. It wasn't morally wrong or a violation of anyone's inalienable rights; it was just stupid. As far as I can tell there would be nothing morally wrong with a similar ammendment to outlaw smoking, but even if it didn't lead to the bootlegging and crime the 18th ammendment did I would still oppose it because I don't want the government getting it's hands on anything else. I agree with you on the Roman Empire part - too many of us are too enthralled by the bread and circuses to realize the government is picking our pockets and expanding it's power over our lives.

Legislating relations between a man and wife is certainly a violation of inalienable rights and in a whole separate category from laws governing certain types of food or smoking - but I think you threw that in there just for effect.

Originally Posted by Cigary

Secondly, you have doubts about if we even have rights as a human being,,,our nature. Don't we have an inalienable right to feed ourselves,,,to clothe ourselves,,,to have a place to eat our food,,,to protect our children,,,you see where I am going with this as the list is pretty long.

I don't have doubts. I agree the things you mention in this paragraph are all inalienable rights. After my original post (where I assumed everyone agreed that inalienable rights existed) AspiringGent made (and Theophilus clarified) a comment that many people see human rights as a subjective cultural construct rather than objective universal rights. Because I never intended this to be a discussion of whether or not inalienable rights exist, in my posts after that I tried to account for both views. I think the point I was trying to make, that arguing we have a right to smoke may not be the best method, applies to both worldviews. I think the risk of our government becoming even more powerful and controlling is a better argument against smoking legislation from a logical perspective, although the rights angle is probably easier to market and sell.

[AspiringGent]

Originally Posted by RJpuffs

Drugs and booze - a different story. Those impair judgement and are linked to crimes and stupidity. No one has ever been pulled over for "driving while smoking" as there is no risk to others on the road.

This argument gets a little sticky once you talk about governments which take responsibility for the health of their citizens. If the government has the people's mandate to provide universal healthcare, then it has a responsibility to discourage unhealthy behaviour, does it not?

[brianwalden]

A lot of people have mentioned "the pursuit of Happiness." To me this term has always bothered me slightly; sometimes I wonder if Jefferson was purposely using it ambiguously so it could mean different things to different people. Still, I don't think any of the founding fathers meant it to mean freedom to do whatever makes you happy as long as it's not directly harming someone else. I think the founding fathers meant Happiness in more of the objective sense than the subjective (the capital H hints at this). If I had to quantify it I would say maybe 75% objective, 25% subjective.

Just look at the language of the Declaration: "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", "laying its foundation on such principles", "Prudence", "it is their duty", "necessity". For every right that the Declaration lists, it also lists an obligation. I see the three biggies the same way. We have a right to Life and an obligation to defend Life; a right to Liberty and an obligation to form and exercise our Conscience; a right to the pursuit of Happiness and an obligation to pursue the End in which we were created to find Happiness.

You can take the Declaration of Independence or leave it (I take it), but I don't think you can take it and then interpret "pursuit of Happiness" to mean an inalienable right to do whatever you damn well please. It just doesn't fit the language of the rest of the document. The unrestrained following of every little desire is a modern idea that would be very foreign to our Founding Fathers. Of course, you could say they were just a bunch of old white guys who don't know what they're talking about but then you can't cite the Declaration as evidence that we have an inalienable right to do whatever we want.

We have always had all kinds of limitations on doing what makes us happy in the small, personal sense of the word. Most of us can't build a shed on our property without a permit, no matter how well trained we are we can't drive without a license and registration, we can't choose to only pay taxes on the programs we wish to support, for much of our history there were laws restricting commerce on Sunday, etc. There are now and have always been tons of restrictions on things we want to do that don't directly harm other people. We might grumble about these restrictions but we don't call them tyranny.

Now I'm not saying our government should get involved in every aspect of our lives. I personally believe in keeping our government as small as possible. But what I'm saying is if it does start to become more powerful, it's not necessarily a violation of our rights. If mobs of people were patrolling the streets, accosting smokers, and destroying their tobacco we could rightly appeal to the government to protect our legal rights. But when its the government who is following the prescribed methods to take away our legal right to smoke, we can't appeal to our legal rights - once the law is changed our rights no longer exist. We must appeal to other arguments like, for example, the danger caused by the growing influence of the government in the minutia of every day life.

[CAJoe]

Originally Posted by brianwalden

A lot of people have mentioned "the pursuit of Happiness." To me this term has always bothered me slightly; sometimes I wonder if Jefferson was purposely using it ambiguously so it could mean different things to different people. Still, I don't think any of the founding fathers meant it to mean freedom to do whatever makes you happy as long as it's not directly harming someone else. I think the founding fathers meant Happiness in more of the objective sense than the subjective (the capital H hints at this). If I had to quantify it I would say maybe 75% objective, 25% subjective.

Just look at the language of the Declaration: "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", "laying its foundation on such principles", "Prudence", "it is their duty", "necessity". For every right that the Declaration lists, it also lists an obligation. I see the three biggies the same way. We have a right to Life and an obligation to defend Life; a right to Liberty and an obligation to form and exercise our Conscience; a right to the pursuit of Happiness and an obligation to pursue the End in which we were created to find Happiness.

You can take the Declaration of Independence or leave it (I take it), but I don't think you can take it and then interpret "pursuit of Happiness" to mean an inalienable right to do whatever you damn well please. It just doesn't fit the language of the rest of the document. The unrestrained following of every little desire is a modern idea that would be very foreign to our Founding Fathers. Of course, you could say they were just a bunch of old white guys who don't know what they're talking about but then you can't cite the Declaration as evidence that we have an inalienable right to do whatever we want.

We have always had all kinds of limitations on doing what makes us happy in the small, personal sense of the word. Most of us can't build a shed on our property without a permit, no matter how well trained we are we can't drive without a license and registration, we can't choose to only pay taxes on the programs we wish to support, for much of our history there were laws restricting commerce on Sunday, etc. There are now and have always been tons of restrictions on things we want to do that don't directly harm other people. We might grumble about these restrictions but we don't call them tyranny.

Now I'm not saying our government should get involved in every aspect of our lives. I personally believe in keeping our government as small as possible. But what I'm saying is if it does start to become more powerful, it's not necessarily a violation of our rights. If mobs of people were patrolling the streets, accosting smokers, and destroying their tobacco we could rightly appeal to the government to protect our legal rights. But when its the government who is following the prescribed methods to take away our legal right to smoke, we can't appeal to our legal rights - once the law is changed our rights no longer exist. We must appeal to other arguments like, for example, the danger caused by the growing influence of the government in the minutia of every day life.

The original wording was "Pursuit of Property" but that was reworded to "Pursuit of Happiness". What can make one person happy and not the other is extremely subjective. Really the only way to look at this is to look at the intent of it when it was written. the Founders wrote many articles on this subject.

Originally Posted by brianwalden

We're always under whatever whim comes along. Inalienable rights don't stop tyrants, they just make tyrants morally wrong. Only a more powerful tyrant stops a tyrant.

This is not true. The will of the people can stop a tyrant as was proved through many revolutions. We have the right to take back our rights.

Originally Posted by brianwalden

Then where do inalienable rights come from? It's my understanding that the classical western view is they come from man's nature (purpose, end, telos, etc). If rights do indeed come from our nature and authorities are morally obligated to respect and defend men's rights, then the logical flipside of that seems to be that man is obligated to live according to his nature.

Many cultures belived these natural rights were derived from a supreme being, a creator. As was the case these rights existed over any man or men and can not be taken away by any mere mortal.

Originally Posted by brianwalden

I don't have doubts. I agree the things you mention in this paragraph are all inalienable rights. After my original post (where I assumed everyone agreed that inalienable rights existed) AspiringGent made (and Theophilus clarified) a comment that many people see human rights as a subjective cultural construct rather than objective universal rights. Because I never intended this to be a discussion of whether or not inalienable rights exist, in my posts after that I tried to account for both views. I think the point I was trying to make, that arguing we have a right to smoke may not be the best method, applies to both worldviews. I think the risk of our government becoming even more powerful and controlling is a better argument against smoking legislation from a logical perspective, although the rights angle is probably easier to market and sell.

I think the rights angle is definantly something we should use to fight this because smoking is our right and our choice. The other ground we should fight this on is States Rights. The Federal Government has no right to pass laws regarding smoking. Nowhere in the articles for the 3 branches of government does it give them the power to regulate tobacco. the 10th amendment by default gives this right to the states. It seems some states are finally waking up and reminding the government that they do not have the supreme power they think they have. Montana is doing this with the "Made in Montana" forearms and I salute them.

[Cigary]

Well, all things being said I have my inalienable right to smoke my cigars,,,it's my right and I am going to exercise it. For those who might feel you don't have that right,,,PM me and I will give you my address so you can send all of your cigars to me when the cigar police try and shut you down,,,I will gladly take them off your hands.

[brianwalden]

Originally Posted by Cigary

Well, all things being said I have my inalienable right to smoke my cigars,,,it's my right and I am going to exercise it. For those who might feel you don't have that right,,,PM me and I will give you my address so you can send all of your cigars to me when the cigar police try and shut you down,,,I will gladly take them off your hands.

Ok, I'll bite. Let's say you have an inalienable right to smoke cigars. Then why don't you have an inalienable right to use alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc? Or do you believe we have an inalienable right to those things and laws passed against them are objectively evil?

Does someone else have an inalienable right to not breathe cigar smoke?

[Theophilus]

Originally Posted by brianwalden

The unrestrained following of every little desire is a modern idea that would be very foreign to our Founding Fathers. Of course, you could say they were just a bunch of old white guys who don't know what they're talking about but then you can't cite the Declaration as evidence that we have an inalienable right to do whatever we want.

I agreed with what you said up until this portion. "The unrestrained following of every little desire" is called "hedonism" and it is not a modern idea at all. It is in fact a very old idea that started with a Greek philosopher named Democritus in the 4th century BCE. I'm sure that the Framers were very aware of the dangers of hedonism when they were writing up the constitution.

[madurolover]

Originally Posted by brianwalden

Ok, I'll bite. Let's say you have an inalienable right to smoke cigars. Then why don't you have an inalienable right to use alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc? Or do you believe we have an inalienable right to those things and laws passed against them are objectively evil?

When you use alchohol, cocaine, heroin, etc you are possibly putting others in danger. After seeing so many alchohol and drug related auto accidents each year I have yet to find one where the driver was simply smoking a cigar. Not to mention that I have never met or heard of anyone that kills or robs to feed his cigar addiction.

Originally Posted by brianwalden

Does someone else have an inalienable right to not breathe cigar smoke?

Yes they do. They also have the inalienable right not to patronize places that allow it.


Disclaimer: All the above is just my opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt.

[brianwalden]

Originally Posted by madurolover

When you use alchohol, cocaine, heroin, etc you are possibly putting others in danger. After seeing so many alchohol and drug related auto accidents each year I have yet to find one where the driver was simply smoking a cigar. Not to mention that I have never met or heard of anyone that kills or robs to feed his cigar addiction.

But what you describe is a logical contradiction. You're using a pragmatic argument to justify preventing everyone from performing some morally neutral action. But, if the government can justly prevent everyone from performing that action, then it wasn't an inalienable right to begin with. Your argument is that the risks to society caused by tobacco users are minuscule compared to drugs and even alcohol, to which I say the risk to society of building a 10 foot high fence around your property is even less than using tobacco but many places still prevent people from doing so just because it looks bad and can lower surrounding property values. So if we can outlaw 10 foot fences without violating someone's rights, why can't we outlaw tobacco? (I'm not saying we should, I'm just saying no one's rights will be violated)

For example, if 50% of parents in a town have totally abandoned their young children and are not providing them with food, clothing, shelter, etc, the local government can legitimately take the children from those people. But the government cannot justly take all the townspeople's children and prevent everyone from having any more children even though so many of the town's people are abusing their right to raise a family.

On the other hand, if 50% of alcohol drinkers in a town are getting into car accidents while intoxicated, the government can justly prevent everyone in the town from drinking alcohol. If drinking alcohol were truly a universal right like raising your children is, then no authority could legitimately deny everyone from drinking alcohol, they could only deny/punish those who abuse that right.

Americans have no inalienable legal rights - as far as I know there's no part of the Constitution that cannot be amended. Additionally, Jefferson was writing about inalienable rights 5 years before America's first Constitution. There's no way he could have been referring to inalienable legal rights; he was talking about inalienable human rights that apply to everyone in every time. So I think if we're going to use the term "inalienable rights" in the way that Jefferson did, we have to demonstrate that using tobacco is more like raising a family (which is one of the basic purposes of being human) than it is like drinking alcohol (which is a legitimate activity as long as we don't abuse it, but not not one of the purposes of being human).

[T_Money]

Originally Posted by AspiringGent

If the government has the people's mandate to provide universal healthcare, then it has a responsibility to discourage unhealthy behaviour, does it not?

The problem is that you use a collectivist term that is inherently false. You should say the government has the "majority's" or "enough of the right people's" mandate.

[T_Money]

Originally Posted by brianwalden

But what you describe is a logical contradiction. You're using a pragmatic argument to justify preventing everyone from performing some morally neutral action. But, if the government can justly prevent everyone from performing that action, then it wasn't an inalienable right to begin with. Your argument is that the risks to society caused by tobacco users are minuscule compared to drugs and even alcohol, to which I say the risk to society of building a 10 foot high fence around your property is even less than using tobacco but many places still prevent people from doing so just because it looks bad and can lower surrounding property values. So if we can outlaw 10 foot fences without violating someone's rights, why can't we outlaw tobacco? (I'm not saying we should, I'm just saying no one's rights will be violated)

For example, if 50% of parents in a town have totally abandoned their young children and are not providing them with food, clothing, shelter, etc, the local government can legitimately take the children from those people. But the government cannot justly take all the townspeople's children and prevent everyone from having any more children even though so many of the town's people are abusing their right to raise a family.

On the other hand, if 50% of alcohol drinkers in a town are getting into car accidents while intoxicated, the government can justly prevent everyone in the town from drinking alcohol. If drinking alcohol were truly a universal right like raising your children is, then no authority could legitimately deny everyone from drinking alcohol, they could only deny/punish those who abuse that right.

Americans have no inalienable legal rights - as far as I know there's no part of the Constitution that cannot be amended. Additionally, Jefferson was writing about inalienable rights 5 years before America's first Constitution. There's no way he could have been referring to inalienable legal rights; he was talking about inalienable human rights that apply to everyone in every time. So I think if we're going to use the term "inalienable rights" in the way that Jefferson did, we have to demonstrate that using tobacco is more like raising a family (which is one of the basic purposes of being human) than it is like drinking alcohol (which is a legitimate activity as long as we don't abuse it, but not not one of the purposes of being human).

The reason why I believe drunk driving is a legitimate arena for govt intervention is that the roads are owned by the government. Therefore the government should have the ability to impose rule over them. That said, I do not believe that the government should own the roads, or at least not pay for them through any non-targeted tax.

That said, no we do not have any right to smoke. However we absolutely have the right to make a cigar or buy a cigar if someone is selling it. We also absolutely have the right to smoke said cigar (or Bill Clinton it if that's what you're into) on your own property or someone who consents to me smoking there.