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.
Interesting. This might be a good idea. Thanks. Will look into it thru the links you provided.
I'm not sure if it IS legal to smoke in public. I know a lot of people are getting pot through prescriptions, so maybe they can smoke it in public. I haven't been following marijuana.
Who says they can't make them addictive? Didn't tobacco companies do exactly that?
Correct-a-mundo!
Smoke em if ya got em but I DON'T want to breathe it and if ya get sick, suck it up.
Why should a child of a person be forced to breathe SHS while the employee of the same person is protected from having to breathe SHS ?
Actually, it boils down to simple discrimination!
However, even I realize that places of establishment, such as a restaurant, should have the right to CHOOSE THEMSELVES if they will allow smoking. There are places here that banned smoking before it became law. Those are the places I enjoy going as it was their choice to accommodate me.
The gov't should have no right to prohibit smoking in privately owned establishments. However, those public buildings such as city hall's that I have to go to, I think should be smoke free.
The gov't,however, seems to think they should be able to control it anywhere-seems YOUR HOME will be next! And it won't stop with smoking!
Worse then that! They outlawed discrimination (it's even against the law to attack gays), but I guess smoker's are fair game.
You got that. Of course the 9th doesn't cover their right to burn candles, charcoal or propane gas around others.
Take a look at the 11th, there you will see it is the right of the property owner to allow tobacco burning on his property.
Yeah, I know, but smoker's are the last group that CAN be discriminated against and they haven't a case!
Are you one of those conservatives that believe the only rights we have were specifically called out in the constitution? Do you believe that the government grants us rights?
The gov't,however, seems to think they should be able to control it anywhere-seems YOUR HOME will be next! And it won't stop with smoking!
I am all for no smoking in grocery stores, government buildings, elevators, etc. But restaurants, bars, taverns and sports inns? They had/have smoking sections and non-smoking sections and have installed large smoke eaters to accommodate everyone. But that still wasn't good enough for the anti-smoker's. And here we sit.
There are 7 smoke-free states. I just hope the rest learn a lesson from this and not follow suit.
If the government goes into a person's home to forbid smoking, they may as well ban cigarettes and tobacco products.
Yeah, I know, but smoker's are the last group that CAN be discriminated against and they haven't a case!
Are we ready to give up Freedom of Choice in this Country?
just for me ?
The smoke Gnatzies will ban us all to the colony.
I'm a smoker and I would be more than happy to enjoy a conversation with you over a brew in a smoke free establishment. Your post is refreshing, thanks.
Unless we can convince some lawyer or the ACLU (yeah, I know........bwahahahahaha) to represent us in a discrimination case, we may very well lose it.
Besides many people in this country are forced to give up Freedom of Choice.
"I'm a smoker, and I believe you should have the right to smoke. However, I am going to try to quit because Phillip Morris contributes the the ACLU!"
Any reason to quit is a good one. Go for it. Save your money and your health.
I mentioned this because there was a lawsuit trying to prohibit someone from smoking in or around there own home due to the non-smoker next door.Of course, they don't want to ban them all together, the gov't needs the money! BTW, if someone is as allergic to cigarette smoke as I am, those smoke eaters and smoking, non-smoking sections don't work.
That doesn't bother me, however, I choose to go to those restaurants in which I can survive! :-) They shouldn't be required to accomodate those of us who happen to have problems I am also highly allergic to certain parfumes, but I don't expect them to stop allowing people to wear it! :-)
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.