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.
"If the government bans it, then it will become a crime."
And I will be a criminal.
And now you've passed that info on to others. Thanks!
"No, because these are not addictive. Only addicts can be controlled enough to be willing to pay confiscatory taxes in order to "enjoy" (read avoid withdrawal symptoms) a cigarette."
Not addictive? You are talking about chocolate and coffee here, they are both addictive. Chocolate to a lesser degree, but lots of people would pay a large sum of money to get their chocolate fix. Coffee is addictive and if you try to stop drinking it you will get headaches for weeks afterwards. Also, coffee is dependency forming. They could get away with heavy taxes on both these items to a large extent but not as heavy as the tax on cigs.
And why would it not?
There is no credible, statistically signficant, replicable study that proves that "secondary" smoke is eminently dangerous to the health of other individuals.
Protection from an eminent danger to another citizen"s "rights" by another citizen is the one of a few justifications for government to exist.
A citizen's rights are not in eminent danger because they do not like the scent of burning tobacco. If it was, then you could make the same case for perfume, deodorant, and body odor.
Then there is the issue of "private property." How did government constitutionally gain jurisdiction over private property?
Some say the commerce clause is the federal government's constitutional justification. As to state government's constitutional jurisdictional justification, the police powers of the state to protect the safety and health of the citizens is the state's justificaton.
Well if that is the case, then your federal government has legislative jurisdiction within most citizen's homes, emanating form the commerce clause, because most citizens have a home loan with a financial institution that is involved in interstate commerce.
Wait to the fed's do not allow smoking in your home, the storage of gasoline for your lawn mower, the storage of paint, the state orders you to recycle your trash, reduction of electricity use because of air pollution, etc.
If the state does not have to prove "eminent" danger to health and safety of citizens when denying or disparaging rights on private property, in particular, then we obviously do not have any rights at all.
But people get sick from other peoples smoke. Its a fact.
My wife has asthma and used to be in the hospital at least once a month. Then she married me and moved out from her home with her four-pack a day father. Since then she has been fine. So I personally know that secondhand smoke does have an effect. Anyhow...
I don't go for all of the socialist crap aimed at tobacco because the hypocrites support legalizing marijuana. The truth is that they just don't like tobacco companies.
"But people get sick from other peoples smoke. Its a fact."
Please provide the data that proves your "fact."
The only ones who have less rights than a smoker are the private restaurant and bar owners who are being forced to operate their businesses the way the government is telling them to.
We are not 100% sure so we protect the adult while letting the child take the risks. Is that logical ?
Not addictive enough to pay 5 per day, every day to have a chocolate or caffeine fix.
Cigarettes are the only legal commodity that we can buy, yet are treated like criminals for using it.
I just can't believe how much money I have saved.
You sure have that right! I tried switching to decaf once. I had a migraine for a week!
And I have friends who can't function in the mornings until they have their Pepsi. I'm not kidding.
"We are not 100% sure so we protect the adult while letting the child take the risks. Is that logical ?"
Are you stating agreement with those of us that stand against the "smoke free workplace" legislation? OR are you making a case for the government to monitor behavior in one's home, "for the children"?
What?!
LOL. That is where it's headed.
2010?!
That's weird. Besides, this guy's off his rocker, imo.
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.