Ask yourself this; did the Founders think that the principles of individual liberty and freedom and tightly restricted powers of government should be subject to exceptions on such a premise as you've laid out? Can you find any quotes of theirs that give such caveats?
This plan of Enzi's is nothing less than social engineering, ie government forced behavior modification. I am at a loss to fit that into any system of government other than totalitarian, socialist, fascist and Marxist communist models. Certainly not into a representative constitutional republican model.
Explicitly? No.
But implicitly, yes! They clearly intended that an individual not have free rein to diminish the same inalienable rights of others. Congress was granted power to make laws to that end.
Does a smoker deprive his non-smoking wife and children of their rights to some degree? I think he possibly does. As I said, I'm still unsettled on the issue.
It's not a clear-cut case, as trespassing on private property or defending your life against an attacker would be. Both the effects of and the decision of smoking are tainted with other factors.
This plan of Enzi's is nothing less than social engineering, ie government forced behavior modification.
Yes, but that isn't inherently wrong, nor is it inherently prohibited by the Constitution. All laws are "forced behavior modification". The question is, does society have a sufficiently strong interest in that behavior to override the individual's rights?
Remember, the Founding Fathers even granted the government the power to take the life of its citizens, after due process of law. They never intended that individual liberty be absolute.
An individual is not allowed, and would not be by the Founding Fathers, to choose to murder his competitors in business. That behavior is denied. He is not permitted by our law, and rightfully so, to prosper by fraud or extortion. Each of those is a "forced behavior modification" to that individual who might want to engage in them, isn't it?
In those cases, as with others, the interests of the People outweigh the individual's liberty. I submit that smoking might meet that same criteria.
If there were some way to ensure that smokers could only put their own health at risk, with no possible way to harm another to any degree, then there would be no question. It would be a clear case of individual liberty.
I am at a loss to fit that into any system of government other than totalitarian, socialist, fascist and Marxist communist models. Certainly not into a representative constitutional republican model.
Come now, you're being disingenuous. We "behavior modify" plenty of unwanted traits, as did the Founding Fathers.
Enzi, as well as other anti-smoking politicians, was elected. You can't pretend it's some Marxist dictatorship just because you disagree with the representation.
The most you can do--and it's perfectly consistent with the ideals of a Constitutional Republic--is to persuade other voters to join you and remove him from office. Until he leads an armed coup and takes over Washington, I think I'll hold off on the comparisons with fascist tyrants.
*sigh* But I can't make up my mind to agree with him either.
One thing, though, is that this should not be a federal issue. The States have Constitutional authority to address this issue.