So, basically, you are claiming that smokers are not bound by the same concept of "rights" that applies to the rest of us -- according to you, their rights apparently do not end "where the other man's nose begins."
The fact is that smoking is one of those things that is nearly impossible to keep private. Smoke does not respect boundaries: it has a tendency to spread where it will, and it invades other people's space whether they want it to or not.
A smoker's expectation of being able to smoke around other people is not based on a "right," it is merely an assumption that the people around him will tolerate his actions. The various laws concerning smoking, including this one, have their roots in the fact that people in general have become much less willing to tolerate the unpleasantness that smokers inflict on them.
Is a law like this a violation of property rights? Yes. But at the same time, it's important to note that it's really a clash of two different and legitimate interests. Laws like this come in response to the fact that smokers' personal choices tend to inflict unwanted consequences on those around them.
You should have stopped at the first sentence.
There are other things that inflict unwanted consequences on those around them. Fireplaces, BBQ, auto exhaust, micro-wave use, man-made global warming(:)), airports(noise), farming(dust-smell), certain plants or animals(allergies), consuming meat(PETA)- if they don't like your activity, your activity becomes an unwanted consequence for them, whether physically or psychologically . How far are you willing to take this?
You really should have stopped at that first sentence.
No, I’m saying rights do not pertain to gratifying some individual’s peculiarities. If you grow roses, and I’m alergic to them (and some people are) I do not have a right to have the government force you to take out your roses.
I’m sorry you have a sensitive nose, but it’s your problem, not anyone else’s, and you have no right foisting your problem on others.
Here’s the principle of rights. There are only rights to do, there are no rights to have anything (except to have the wealth you have earned—by doing something productive). There is no right to have a job, medical care, education, or even food. There is no right to have an environment you like, which someone else has to provide.
Rights mean no one may interfere in your life to prevent you from living it as you choose, as long as you do not inerfere in anyone else’s—by the use or threat of force.
Anything else meant by “rights” requires the oppression of others and actually violates rights. Period.
Hank
What consequences would those be?
I don't like the smell of hooker perfume that is everywhere in every retail outlet I visit.
Should I advocate banning hooker perfume?