Posted on 02/15/2005 8:24:48 AM PST by SheLion
Do people who enjoy smoking have any rights? Increasingly, the answer is no. It is essential to keep in mind that smoking cigarettes, cigars, or pipes is an entirely personal choice. No one is required to smoke. Millions voluntarily stop smoking every year. People have been smoking, and enjoying tobacco products for a very long time, but now they have been demonized and ostracized.
Using the power of government, to tax, smokers are being ripped off at every level. Recently, New York City sent letters to 2,300 residents giving them thirty days to pay the taxes on the cartons of cigarettes they had purchased over the Internet. It's the law.
A single pack of cigarettes in New York City comes with a state tax of $1.50, a city tax of $1.50, and a federal tax of 39 cents. A pack of Marlboro cigarettes will cost you $7.00. A ten-pack carton will cost you more than $55.00. Purchased at an international airport's duty-free store, the same carton retails for just $16.00.
There are few, if any, people who do not know there is an element of risk involved in the decision to smoke. There is risk involved when any American gets into his car and goes anywhere. Driving kills over 40,000 Americans every year. It is the price we pay for the mobility, and other benefits cars and vehicles provide. There is, in fact, risk in every human activity, including the enjoyment of alcoholic beverages and even the simple act of eating.
The U.S. engaged in a hugely failed experiment, called Prohibition, to stop people from drinking alcoholic beverages at their favorite saloon. It took a Constitutional amendment to end it. For many years now, the same thinking that imposed Prohibition has been at work to achieve the same outcome with smoking.
It is un-American in the most profound sense of that term. In a nation founded on the individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, preventing people from the enjoyment of smoking runs contrary to the inherent right to enjoy this lifestyle option if you want.
Consider, however, some events in 2004. The first worldwide antismoking treaty - the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) - was ratified, and is now in effect. It is yet another example of the United Nation's intention to control every aspect of the lives of everyone on planet Earth. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is the lead organization in America, and it has promised to "now concentrate on enforcement efforts."
During 2004, six nations imposed a no-smoking ban. Among them were Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. These nations are notable for their liberal, i.e., socialist political agendas. Here in the U.S., so-called "nonsmoker's rights" became law in Idaho, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. At the local level, thirty-two jurisdictions passed comprehensive workplace smoking laws in 2004, along with "less comprehensive smokefree workplace laws."
There's more. Eleven States, including Virginia, where historically tobacco was the crop that encouraged its establishment and growth as an American colony, substantially increased their cigarette taxes. Consider the example of New York City, and multiply it by other cities and states, cashing in, while at the same time, banning smoking, indoors and out. That is obscene.
Now imagine a similar level of taxation on a candy bar, a cup of coffee, or soft drink. Think it can't happen? Think again.
ASH has big plans for 2005. It plans to "take advantage of a new ruling which now makes it possible for sensitive nonsmokers to sue states which do not provide them with reasonable protection from tobacco smoke pollution."
These suits will eventually cost taxpayers millions, draining vital financial resources from serious needs such as infrastructure improvements. ASH will push for more and more bans, on people who smoke outdoors on beaches, and elsewhere. In California, it is already against the law to light up on the beach.
Let's say you've just bought a condo, or moved to an apartment. ASH intends to encourage and assist lawsuits by apartment dwellers who object to neighbors smoking in their own apartments. In the name of protecting children, ASH will pursue laws that ban parents from smoking around their children, by getting courts to issue orders to ban smoking in custody cases, or by a foster parent, or in a car, while driving children anywhere.
All this is happening in the "land of the free, and the home of the brave," as well as around the world, where the U.N. antismoking treaty bans any advertising for tobacco products, requires health warning labels similar to those on products sold in the U.S., bans any secondhand smoke in workplaces, public transport, and indoor public places.
It empowers a vast law enforcement program against smuggling, and there will be smuggling, leading to cartels that rival illegal drugs. There's more, but the ultimate objective is to eliminate smoking anywhere on the face of the Earth.
This is pure fascism - using the power of the state to deny this simple pleasure from being enjoyed anywhere. And, when the national and global antismoking campaign is successful, these same people will turn their attention to banning the consumption of meat, fish, cookies, candy, potato chips, soft drinks, or anything else they decide you should not enjoy.
Do smokers have any rights? Apparently not.
A lot of the state budgets are balanced on the backs of smokers. That is why we are so upset. 25-30% of the people in the state smoke, and the government expects them to balance a budget. Yet smokers are being controlled, banned and restricted. We are definitely paying for this personal abuse.
"With all do respect to your wife, I would find it hard to believe that if you and her walked inadvertently into a private property venue in which others were smoking cigerettes and cigars, that your wife's health would be in suc "eminent" danger that before you have a chance to determine there is the presence of cigarette/cigar smoke and then decide to leave the premises, she would be "harmed" to such a degree that liability compensation would be justified."
For us this is simple: we just leave.
Not everyone has that choice, though. That's where the law gets murky. Granted, if it is your property you should have a right to do as you please with regards to smoking. However, your non-smoking employees should not have to submit to being exposed to known carcinogens.
The issue would be similar to using mercury for mining. The government restricts this 'right' becuase of the known toxicity of the substance and the fact that mercury contamination does not stay in one place. This would be a precedent for restricting tobacco as a public health concern.
In 1998 the link made by the EPA Report in 1993 between secondary smoke and cancer was thrown out in a federal court because the statistics were bent to support a predetermined conclusion and normal scientific guidelines were ignored.
Practical Implications
Information can be misused, certainly. But you have to admit, a BAT scientist is probably the last guy to look to for objectivity.
Smokerphobia is rampant in this country. No tolerance whatsoever.
If you don't recocnize the socio-economic links to smoking, its you that needs to lay off the koolaid.
"However, your non-smoking employees should not have to submit to being exposed to known carcinogens."
Really. That is amazing. How do we ever get any manufacturing done in this country. I seem to recall that MSDS data shows the exposure limits with regards to toxins and carcinogens. Does such a thing exist for SHS?
If your stating the root cause to asthma is poverty, how about we outlaw poverty. You know, that war on poverty that has been so successful over the last 40 years. Seems to work great.
Is that the road you want to travel, or would you prefer to outlaw smoking, just a symptom of the root cause?
Smokers, like homosexuals, have the exact same rights as everyone else. The laws are applied fairly.
That said, I think the government has the right to ban smoking in government buildings, and private companies have the right to ban it on their property. But never the twain should meet.
Thanks for that 1937 quote. Pretty funny!
The problem arises in that while I philosophically agree. I can't say that I'm not physically pleased when smoking is banned from my presence. When a restaurant bans smoking, or smoking is banned in restaurants as in Dallas, I'm actually more comfortable in those places. I'd be lying if that I said that wasn't so.
Do you actually think the antis are going to READ that?
I don't think so.
They use the "studies" they like,the ones that suit their agenda.. Period.
come on, I never stated the root cause of asthma is poverty. That's like saying the root cause of death is life. You asked how asthma could be going up if smoking is going down. I gave you a reasonable explanation.
I put it out there for the lurkers. Someone will find it worthwhile, I am sure.
Why would you lump smoker's in with homosexuals, btw? You know, those of us in Free Republic are Conservative Republican's right? This isn't the Yahoo Smoking Chat Room.
I think that if smokers really cared about anyone but themselves, these would not be issues. Instead everyone is asked to assume risks just so smokers won;t feel withdrawal symptoms.
Yes, well, tell that to all the private business owner's that are going broke and having to close. Pretty good attitude from someone claiming to be one of our own.
Agreed.
Your birthdays must be terribly dull.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.