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.
There is a tremendous gulf between "I think it might" and murder as in your later example.
Both the effects of and the decision of smoking are tainted with other factors.
So is driving a vehicle. In fact so is owning a firearm.
All laws are "forced behavior modification". ... Each of those is a "forced behavior modification" to that individual who might want to engage in them, isn't it? (as per your examples)
No, not at all. Those laws provide for punishment for harming others. There is no intention in them to modify behavior as per this cap-and-trade scheme which allows the behavior but works at (in theory) getting people to gradually change behavior. Your view of the purpose of criminal law is skewed 180 degrees out of whack. You are imposing your own emotionally based motivations and perceptions over the actual bases and genesis of criminal law.
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.
This statement assumes that the question of whether second-hand tobacco smoke does do harm is settled. That is far from being a known fact. It also assumes that every behavior that contains some potential harm (as opposed to absolute harm as in murder, fraud, theft, etc) is subject to governmental authority.
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.
"Interests of the People" is a perfect definition of socialist criterion for governance.
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.
I neither said nor implied any such thing. You are being disingenuous to suggest that I did. I said that Enzi's plan fits those models of governance and not ours. That is true. That it might be implemented by elected representatives under the rules of constitutional governance doesn't change the character of the plan itself. Nor the consequences.
Until he leads an armed coup and takes over Washington, I think I'll hold off on the comparisons with fascist tyrants.
Empty hyperbolic rhetoric intended to imply that I did. I did not.
*sigh* But I can't make up my mind to agree with him either.
It's all about choices. You stated this position before so I threw out some rhetorical questions to give you a baseline you might use to sort out your priorities. What you do with it is your business. Either you set your priorities based on support for the principles of governance you want or you set them on the outcome you personally desire in each situation. The former sometimes means supporting the liberty of others to do things you don't care for personally.
What harm to others are you talking about? SHS?
Before you spend 4 posts and 3,000 word manifestos that are longer than the Old Testament trying to obfuscate the issue, let me make your argument for you:
The Gubmint doesn't need to prove harm to others to enact laws...there are dozens of prohibited actions that are simply designed to protect people from themselves. Gambling, drugs...When did "harm to others" become a requirement for the nanny state? You can't play poker in your pajamas online, in your own living room, with your own computer and your own money. (I wouldn't anyway but that's not the point)
Why do previously free people willingly let the Gubmint be their masters?