Do smokers have any rights?

eco-logic Powerhouse.com ^ | February 15, 2005 | Alan Caruba

[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.

[Old Professer]

Generally, when a single individual takes away another's rights he is punished.

[JohnD9207]

Exactly Professor. While Notigar simply states that people who smoke around kids should get reported and punished, it really isn't that simple. We (society) cannot get people to quit smoking crack around their kids, let alone cigarettes. However one should be careful when talking away peoples rights, and turning a law abiding citizen into a criminal. Folks usually object!

[humblegunner]

Puff.

[Doe Eyes]

from allowing consumption of a legal commodity on his property

Don't worry, illegal is soon to come.

[SheLion]

Puff.

Puff back atcha! :)

[Bogey]

But you have to admit, a BAT scientist is probably the last guy to look to for objectivity.

---

Why does he have any less crediability that cancer scientists that get paid millions to get a certain result?
And they are paid HUGE money.
Cancer isn't called a business for no reason.

[Bogey]

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.

---

Where are you FORCED to go that you have to be around smokers? If a business CHOOSES to allow smoking, why are you forced to go in?
Unlike your car exhaust, which no law protects people from.

[Bogey]

I agree that smoking around kids is stupid, how does one go about taking away someone's rights?

---

If smoking around children is so dangerous, shouldn't we all be dead?
Until the late 70's, smoking was permitted everywhere, including hospitals.
Not to mention 45% of the population smoked.
SHS didn't cause all these health problems then.
Not until people were brainwashed to believe this crap.
The facts just don't support the "supposed" science.
Where are the bodies?
Does smoke stink if you don't smoke? You betcha.
Doesn't make it deadly.
Our parents were the largest generation of smokers.
They are the longest living.

[notigar]

Yeah, but cancer scientists aren't causing cancer. It exists.

[Raycpa]

My advice is designed to help smokers stop the smoking bans. If you want to continue to see them applied and watch yourself see fewer and fewer smoking places, including homes with children or multifamilies, please by all means ignore it.

[Bogey]

Yeah, but cancer scientists aren't causing cancer. It exists.

---

But their are paid huge dollars to come up with a reason for it.
Whether it's true or not.
If the American Cancer Society pays someone 5 million dollars to prove something causes cancer, I bet hell or highwater they get the results they want.
It's called payola. Not science.
And it's big business.

[Bogey]

My advice is designed to help smokers stop the smoking bans. If you want to continue to see them applied and watch yourself see fewer and fewer smoking places, including homes with children or multifamilies, please by all means ignore it.

---

Everyone has a right to determine what they call dangerous and offensive.
Activists Judges are deeming religious expression equally dangerous and offensive in ruling after ruling.
Since the public is incapable of determining what's best for them, the Judges do it for them.
Life is so simple when other's control what's acceptable, dangerous and offensive. Even if they can't back it up.

[Raycpa]

Everyone has a right to determine what they call dangerous and offensive.

And when the majority decide to use the government to enforce their wishes for smoke free environments, you lose.

It really does matter what they think of smokers.

[Just another Joe]

My advice is designed to help smokers stop the smoking bans.

Putting out your brand of pablum again, Ray?

Your advice is designed to help smokers accept the smoking bans, not stop the smoking bans.
You've readily admitted on other threads that you would ban smoking altogether. So don't try to peddle your horse apples to someone that hasn't had experience with you.

[Just another Joe]

And when the majority decide to use the government to enforce their wishes for smoke free environments, you lose.

When that happens, and the anti-smokers win using the government, everyone loses.

I'll tell you the truth, Ray, when they come after something you enjoy, I'm going to laugh my arse off and tell you to suck it up.

[CSM]

Ray, Still waiting for you to enter the Kelo threads in support of government confiscation of private property from one private citizen to be given to other private citizens for alternative uses. Is the smoking ban issue any different? I say not. Do you have the intestinal fortitude to challenge the conservative POV regarding private property on those threads?

[Raycpa]

Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
	Posted by Raycpa to CSM On News/Activism 06/24/2005 3:08:22 PM EDT · 700 of 728 You celebrate and applaud smoking bans. You have me confused with someone else if the ban is from government. You describe the larger chain restaurants support of such bans, ultimately eliminating their smaller competitors, as capitalism. That is a fact. In this case, a private developer is using government force to confiscate private property. More like government is using the private developer. Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies
Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
	Posted by CSM to Raycpa On News/Activism 06/24/2005 2:39:16 PM EDT · 698 of 728 You celebrate and applaud smoking bans. You describe the larger chain restaurants support of such bans, ultimately eliminating their smaller competitors, as capitalism. In this case, a private developer is using government force to confiscate private property. No difference. It has now been sanctioned by the USSC. When is your party? Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies
Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
	Posted by Raycpa to CSM On News/Activism 06/24/2005 2:19:17 PM EDT · 696 of 728 Why do you think I celebrate the reality that states have domain over property? The fact that I attempt to educate you and others about state rights doesn't mean I celebrate the situation. Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies
Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
	Posted by CSM to Raycpa; Gabz; SheLion On News/Activism 06/24/2005 12:56:59 PM EDT · 689 of 728 Hey Ray, Isn't this your definition of capitalism? Why haven't you come on over for a little celebration of this decision?

[MEGoody]

I think that if smokers really cared about anyone but themselves, these would not be issues.

I think that if anti-smoking Nazis cared about anyone but themselves, there would not be issues.

[Bogey]

And when the majority decide to use the government to enforce their wishes for smoke free environments, you lose.

It really does matter what they think of smokers.

---

And religious extremists. Which is why the courts are taking charge. Everyday another religious expression is squashed and outlawed all over the country.
And the majority is staying quiet.
Majority rule is a slippery slope.
It's too bad we don't operate as we were supposed to. A Republic.
A true democracy, as you support, eventually bites everyone in the rear.
Including you.

[Raycpa]

If you make your stand based on a fiction of reality, you lose before you start.