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

I suppose that I have finally moved to the point where I am embracing my anarchist leanings more and more. That said, I believe the laws outlined above are excessive. I will say now that I still smoke. I do not throw my butts out, I strip them and throw them away. I do not smoke in the presence of my children. I do not smoke in places that are crowded with people simply out of respect for those who do not smoke. I smoke outside and that's OK with me. I believe restaurants and bars should make those decisions, not the state. Ultimately, the customers will pressure the owners one way or another. I believe that people should be personally responsible and respect individuals and their rights. You have a right to breathe clean air and I will not infringe on that. I have a right to smoke, even if I know that it's a really bad health risk. I am addicted, OK? But what I am really getting at is that society must begin to wake up to the fact that no matter how many laws the state creates, it does not legislate common sense nor common courtesies. At some point we have to begin to draw and line and be personally responsible. If you smoke, don't let it infringe on others. If you don't, then allow those that do the space to do so without infringing on their right to make bad choices, as long as those choices don't infringe on you.

Back in the heyday of tobacco, when we smoked in airplanes, theaters, restaurants, grocery stores, banks, and even hospitals, when non smokers were obliged to keep ashtrays on hand for their smoking friends and the lingering stench of tobacco was everywhere, no one seemed to pay it much attention. Then there came a revolution of sorts, non smokers found the courage to tell smokers it WASN'T alright to light up in their living rooms, many provided a "smoking porch" where ashtrays were placed and smokers could gather to feed their habit, always leaving behind those little bowls of reeking excrement for the host or hostess to clean up later. Soon, in the homes of non smokers even the smoking porch was abolished and smokers were sent out of doors to enjoy their habit. Now, said host or hostess, walks out the next day to admire a rosebush or pull the odd weed out of the landscaping and finds little pigeon tampons littering the lawn.
Enough! thinks the non smoker, and the smokers names are deleted from future guest lists. Non smokers, far outnumbering smokers, began to realize that having made inroads in their personal space it might be possible to avoid tobacco smoke wafting up their nostrils as they attempted to enjoy an expensive meal at a fine restaurant or breath the noxious exhalations of drug addicts anywhere else for that matter. The heyday of tobacco is over, the spitoons are gone and the ashtrays are on the way out. Smokers have no rights nor do we deserve any.

But smoking is not a right.

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.

How I see it on my fourth tobacco free day after a 37 year relationship with cigarettes:

In a world in which property Rights are respected, it remains an issue of private property rights in that as a result of a possibly flawed ventilation system your Right to peacably enjoy your property (through ownership of the apartment or ownership of the leasehold) is compromised.

In a world in which property Rights are respected, it remains an issue of private property rights in that as a result of a possibly flawed ventilation system your Right to peacably enjoy your property (through ownership of the apartment or ownership of the leasehold) is compromised. You have recourse to either having the owner of the building correct the issue or, if you so choose, moving at his expense. If the apartments are all privately owned, it is your neighbor's responsibility to correct the infringement of your right(s).
Yours,
Issodhos

Further, restricting hazardous behavior IN PRIVATE may (may) be appropriate when it affects others

Rhis (sic) is why i started the thread as I did. Where did this "property right" come from? Who says there is such a thing other than those who own property and keep mouthing the same statement over and over?

Oh, I know, natural rights, except they were never included in the Constitution except for the provision I quoted to start the thread.

People have rights, not property. That was heavily debated in the forming of this country and was rejected in favor of the Consitution which is conveniently ignored when desired results are in conflict.

Rhis is why i started the thread as I did. Where did this "property right" come from? Who says there is such a thing other than those who own property and keep mouthing the same statement over and over?

Oh, I know, natural rights, except they were never included in the Constitution except for the provision I quoted to start the thread.

People have rights, not property. That was heavily debated in the forming of this country and was rejected in favor of the Consitution which is conveniently ignored when desired results are in conflict.