Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Constitutional Issues Smoking in Public and Whose Rights are they?

Interesting, but I've decided not to have an opinion.

I'm reasonably pleased to see the total direction that we're headed. Easier to say that when it doesn't personally "cost" me anything.

I suppose I'm a wimp, because I try not to get in too deep on subjects like Religion, Abortion, Gun Control, Gay Rights, or legalizing Marijuana. Maybe it's because I already know both sides of the arguments, and realize that "winning" or changing minds usually doesn't happen on these subjects.

I'm more comfortable in exploring arguments on issues that are more in a state of flux.

Be that as it may, my three pack Pall Mall a day habit ended with cancer in 1989... In this case, rights or no rights, doesn't matter. Eighteen years later, my second chance is still working. They say experience is the best teacher.

I AM glad that Prohibition was repealed, since the 4 PM martini is the essence of a stable existence.

For those who think regulating smoking in one or more places of your choosing, are you opposed to all government health regulation? On what basis? If only some, what kinds and on what basis.

Contrary to what some people might have inferred from my previous post, I think people should have have the right to smoke anyplace it does not adversly affect anyone else. That would include their own car while they are driving. (I simply object to them setting wildfires because they can't clean up their own messes!)

I also support the idea of public "smoker's clubs" where anyone can light up at will, and they should be able to smoke any herb they prefer! (See, I'm not really such a control-freak.) As for nitrous oxide, that would be a problem in a "smoker's club". Nitrous is a powerful oxidant, so cigarettes would burst into flames or even go up in a flash like gunpowder. (On the other hand, that might be fun to watch!)

But besides law enforcement or financial incentives, how can we encourage desirable behaviors and discourage nasty ones? We aren't talking about grade-schoolers we can indoctrinate with "everybody shares" and "clean up your own mess". We are talking about people stubborn enough to do something they know will kill them and is a very expensive habit that many others find disgusting. They are not likely to pay any attention to Public Service Announcements or some idealist's thoughts on the responsibility of free citizenship.

Phil, I think you might need to edit your question a bit.

My opinion on government health regulation is heavily weighted toward personal freedom: I think people should have the right to humane euthanasia, which is the ultimate health decision. Short of that, I believe they should be able to choose or refuse their medical treatment options as long as they can make an informed decision.

The role of the federal government should be limited to supplying that information, which would include statistics on treatment success/failure, drug safety and efficiency, medical practitioner qualifications/successful outcomes/failures/fatalities, food safety, etc. The current system that tries to make all your treatment decisions for you should only apply to people who are so impaired they can't make their own.

My wife has suffered for years from an undiagnosed condition that is probably chronic Lyme Disease (AKA Post-Lyme Syndrome). Doctors who have had some success treating such patients with long-term antibiotics have lost their licenses because the medical establish forbids that treatment!

Bu..bu..but, you have a bigger doughnut!!
Yours,
Issodhos

Having trouble staying on topic? You can do it, I know you can.

The question is at what point government regulation of smoking - or of any other personal vice behavior, for that matter - moves out of the legitimate role of promoting the general welfare and crosses into the area of being a nanny. The first is acceptable, the second is an unwarranted infringement on personal liberty. And no, the government does not have a duty to save us from our own reckless behavior as long as we do not adversely affect others in the process.

Under its power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress can impose any health/safety regulations it wishes in the same manner that it regulates general and/or hazardous materials also moving therein.

Authority under the F&DA should be limited to making sure that harmful materials are not added to tobacco products as a part of the manufacturing process. Saying that the F&DA should be granted authority to regulate them, especially cigarets, as a so-called "drug delivery system", is ridiculous.

As to regulating where a user of tobacco products may do so, you need to distinguish between classes of property and/or access. If it is public property - i. e., that property paid for with taxes - then that can be decided through the usual process of making regulations/laws. If it is private property, then you have to address the question of public access to it, if any, and under what circumstances.

In the case of private property such as a doctor's office or a privately-owned clinic, there is public access but such access may be considered nonvoluntary. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to regulate - prohibit - smoking there for the simple reason that people may be forced to be there.

In the case of private property with voluntary public access, then the owner of the property has the right to decide his smoking/no smoking policy without assistance from government. Ditto for private property with private access.

In the subset of private property with restricted access such as a place of employment, then the owner is free aslong as he doesn't transgress OSHA or similar rules. If an employer has a policy of hiring only non-smokers, that's his business - just as it would be if he were to choose to hire only smokers.

I would perhaps agree with you, Ron, if smoking were merely a vice. It is not; it is both a public and private health hazard. For me, there's a huge boundary there.

"As long as we do not adversely affect others" -- yes, exactly, and I do agree with you. But restricting hazardous behavior in public does not fall in this category. Further, restricting hazardous behavior IN PRIVATE may (may) be appropriate when it affects others - for example, if smoke from the apartment below me travels through the ventilation system to my apartment, their privacy has just become public, in that it affects me.

But back to where I started - smoking is not a vice. It is a health hazard.

One of the reasons I posted this in this forum is that it raises the age old issue of when does my right become your loss? With regard to smoking, if it can be done in such a way that it never escapes the person of the smoker, I have no interest in regulating it's use. But once I have to breathe it, no matter where that may be, either I have to harm my health or avoid a space I have the same right to be in as the smoker.

Let us remember that there are Consitutional limits on what can be done in a place of "public accomodation." It is not entirely up to the owner to decide the rules. As someone who worked in bars, I can tell you how toxic smoking is. Those who say I chose to work there are correct, however it wasn't a choice because once one bar permits smoking all will to not "lose business."

So I fail to see any reason for not banning smoking in any manner that it reacdhes the lungs of any other human being, with the sole exception being those places not "public accomodations."

I presume, pondering_it_all, that all outdoor open flames are banned in your high danger fire zone -- fireworks, lanterns, candles, charcoal grills -- not just cigarettes.

Since it is not the person's smoking within the confines of his privately owned vehicle that is the problem, but rather his littering and ignoring an across the board open flame ban in a high danger fire area by hanging his lit cigarette out the window, would you agree that as long as he confines his smoking (specifically in this case the open flame) to the interior of his private vehicle he is not violating the property rights or any other rights of those living in your high danger fire zone?
Yours,
Issodhos