Do we really have a right to smoke?

[brianwalden]

I hope this is in the right forum, please move or delete it if it's inappropriate. I'm not philosopher, so please correct any errors in my logic. I always get a little uncomfortable when I hear the phrase smoker's rights or right to smoke. Maybe my definition of a right is a little outdated, but to me rights are something that come from our human nature.

A few examples:
We have a right to life; that's our most basic purpose here on earth.
Because of our free-will we have a right to the legitimate exercise of our conscience.
We have a right to to educate our children because of our obligation to raise and provide for them.

And by extension I can see some other things also being labeled rights:
Because we have an obligation to defend our family and neighbor and we're not all Chuck Norris we have a right to bear arms.
And while in a perfect world we might share everything equally, in this imperfect world that usually only works in very small communities, so we have a right to own property.

But I find it hard to believe we truly have a right to smoke. There's nothing intrinsic in our human nature that leads to a right to smoke. I wonder if in this age where people claim a right for delicious animals to not be eaten or parents to murder their children, we want to make an argument that we have a right to smoke. I worry about lumping these government given "rights" (which as far as I can tell are really just privileges granted by our government until they feel like taking them away) with true rights that derive directly from our human nature.

Isn't a much better argument that it's imprudent to outlaw personal activities like smoking. That doing so makes it easier for authorities to exercise control over more and more areas of our lives. I realize such an argument doesn't make a great sound bite, but to me it seems more correct. The government has already demonstrated that they have the right to take away our "right" to drink - it's just stupid do to so and creates way more problems than it solves. Most people agree the 18th Amendment was imprudent but I don't think most people think it was a morally repugnant law. I see smoking as being in the same boat as drinking.

Ok, I'll step off my soapbox.

[AspiringGent]

I think you've hit on a good point that I'm sure others will agree and disagree with. Here's a few comments:

1)What you consider a right, other cultures would consider crazy, i.e. the right to bear arms. The concept of "rights" is a social construct. In Afghanistan they consider it a man's "right" to beat his wife.

2)You hit the nail on the head about how to argue the smoking cause. Instead of treating cigar bans as a removal of a right, it is more of a stab at individual liberty. Perhaps we should ban cars, as motor vehicles cause far more deaths, etc, etc

3) If I have the right to smoke, does that mean the person next to me has the right to breath clean air?

[RJpuffs]

The point here is not the "right to smoke" - but the freedom of choice, even if ones choice may be morally or medically wrong.

Smoking has health risks, there is no denying that. The level of risk varies from individual to individual, I have seen 90 year old grannies that have been chain smoking since the pterodactyl era - and they were in better physical condition that me! Others have dropped dead in their teens from various smoking related ailments - and some didn't even smoke. If one has a predisposition for a specific problem, you're gonna get it no matter if you smoke or inhale exhaust fumes walking to school/work.

By the same token, polluting our air is obviously a bad thing and will kill any living thing that breathes the air. Yet we make the choice to drive cars, that burn gasoline and add to the pollution.

Sugar filled soda - now there is a killer that targets kids. One can of Coca Cola will cause more damage than a box full of cigars. Yet we grant our kids the choice to imbibe that diabetes-in-a-can.

The bottom line is, I have free will and if I choose to risk my health and my life - be it puffing a cigar or pipe, or riding a bicycle down the streets in NY City, or riding the subway (Gawd, those things have never been cleaned) - I have every right do so without any do-gooder intervention. As long as I do not endanger those around me.

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.

If they want to tax us - grant us the right and dignity to light up, at least in sensibly designated smoking areas. NYC banned smoking in bars a few years ago, half the bars went out of business within a month. Stupid.

[Theophilus]

Originally Posted by AspiringGent

I think you've hit on a good point that I'm sure others will agree and disagree with. Here's a few comments:

1)What you consider a right, other cultures would consider crazy, i.e. the right to bear arms. The concept of "rights" is a social construct. In Afghanistan they consider it a man's "right" to beat his wife.

2)You hit the nail on the head about how to argue the smoking cause. Instead of treating cigar bans as a removal of a right, it is more of a stab at individual liberty. Perhaps we should ban cars, as motor vehicles cause far more deaths, etc, etc

3) If I have the right to smoke, does that mean the person next to me has the right to breath clean air?

#1 is only true under social contract theory of rights. Under other theories, the concept of a right, or what is right, is something that is universally true for all people in all places at all times. These people argue that it is objectively wrong to do certain things, like to beat one's wife, and all who do, no matter what country they are in, are wrong.

To me the real issue is do we really have the right to the pursuit of happiness? If so, then if smoking makes me happy, then I have the right to smoke. If breathing clean air makes me happy, then I have the right to breathe clean air. Common courtesy dictates when and where one smokes outside. For instance, if I want to smoke and you don't like smoke, I'll take a few steps down wind so you don't have to breathe my smoke.

I believe property rights dictate when and where one smokes inside. If I own a business, the government has no right to tell me that it has to be a non-smoking establishment. For instance, in Alabama, if you go to eat at a Waffle House, everyone knows that there will be a lot of smoke inside. If you want to breathe clean air, you have the right to go eat somewhere else.

I say let business owners call the shots on smoking and let the free market determine who makes it and who doesn't.

[DBCcigar]

I agree with RJPuffs!

WTG!

[DBCcigar]

I agree with RJPuffs!


WTG!

[jledou]

A right not necessarily but the ability to make a choice concerning a legal product? yep.

[brianwalden]

Well, now, we're getting into first principles.

Originally Posted by RJpuffs

1)What you consider a right, other cultures would consider crazy, i.e. the right to bear arms. The concept of "rights" is a social construct. In Afghanistan they consider it a man's "right" to beat his wife.

What Theophilus said about rights being social constructs versus universal truths. I can't say with absolute certainty which view is correct, but if rights are just social constructs then I don't have a problem with claiming we have a "right to smoke". A right in that instance is whatever society/government says is a right and can change over time/location - so if we get enough people to agree with us then abracadabra! we have a right to smoke (of course, the danger is that this also works in the other direction).

Actually maybe that's why I don't like the whole social constructs view of rights. It gives the government the idea that it's its job to define rights. In my mind the government has no authority to define human rights, merely the obligation to recognize and protect them.

Originally Posted by RJpuffs

The point here is not the "right to smoke" - but the freedom of choice, even if ones choice may be morally or medically wrong.

I'd put forth that we do not have the freedom to do what is morally wrong (under the classical meaning of those words, not the modern meaning of freedom to do whatever we damn well please). If we had a method for determining non-empirical truths with the exactness that the scientific method can be used to determine empirical truths, I would support a wider range of laws dictating morality than are currently in existence.

[strider72]

Freedom of choice. To choose to eat too many Big Macs, steaks, smoke cigars like there is no tomorrow, not to elect that socialist SOB, drink brandy like water, etc. People have gotten used to the government taking a little at a time. The time for that to stop has passed. Give those SOB's nothing. Ring their phones of the hook, flood their email addresses, start our own poll to counter CNN/Gallup whatever, drag the nonparticipating ciggie-smokers into the political scene kicking and a screaming...

We need to have a Freedom of Choice rally. To smoke, keep and bear arms, enjoy a Whiskey/whatever, drive a big SUV/Hot rod/motorcycle/whatever if we choose, to watch a good old shoot'em up, or read a good sci-fi novel. Because after they destroy the tobacco culture(which ain't gonna be easy), they are going to go after other luxuries/safety/healthissues or whatever they want to call it. Americans need to unite under the cause of freedom and stop this communist/socialist/democratic bull***t now.

BTW Democracy is mob rule at it's core. So you can choose to live in this bastardized democracy we are in now or push for the constitutional republic we were.

[slyder]

I dont want "bear" arms! I think Id look just silly!

just incase somebody missed that..........im takin over as the spelling police.

[strider72]

Well, there is a thing called a dictionary, look up the different meanings of "bear". Your badge will probably be revoked....

[s.tyler]

i think we do have a right to smoke as we our the rulers of our bodies. however, rights do have limits and we do not possess the right to invade the air space of someone else. just as we have the right to smoke the person next to us has the right to not breathe our tobacco smoke. our government and political system has become too paternalistic in deciding what we can and cannot put into our bodies. as long as we are aware of a substance's risks and our use does not place someone else in danger than we should be free to use as we see fit.

[slyder]

Originally Posted by strider72

Well, there is a thing called a dictionary, look up the different meanings of "bear". Your badge will probably be revoked....

oh you got me on that one........brain fart.....i was thinking of "bare"

My bad....please continue.

[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? Bars and restaurants whose clientele caters to those who smoke,,,why are these places placed under an edict that says they can't smoke there when everybody agrees to the premise? Same thing for B&M's,,,,everyone who walks in there takes upon themselves an implied risk,,,no matter how small. I used to live in LA where the smog was so bad they gave health warnings everyday,,,why didn't they shut down the freeways? This country is all about being PC,,,we even engage in PC politics with the world so we don't hurt their precious feelings. Kim Jung ILL must be ecstatic as to how the Gentle Giant is taking all of the launches that Korea is doing. He thumbs his nose at us we talk about using "stong words of condemnation" at him,,,,,unreal. IN the words of Denis Leary,,,smoke em if you got em.

[golfermd]

I don't know about a right to smoke. But I do have the right to pursue happiness and to free speech (both of which are explicitly stated in the Constitution). Both of those are invoked when I enjoy a good cigar...