Does a person have a right to smoke in the presence of unconsenting people?
There are several basic issues involved here. The first one is whether or not smoking is an interference with the rights of the person who does not consent to breathe secondhand smoke. One can see this as a question, first of all, as to whether smoking is voluntary, and breathing is voluntary, and secondly, to what extent smoking in the presence of someone who doesn't consent inconveniences that other person.
Let's take each in turn.
Breathing is a requirement. It is not an option. Smoking is voluntary. Although it can be argued that smoking is highly addictive, and I would agree, the act of lighting up a particular cigarette, cigar, or pipe, is a voluntary one. Choosing where to smoke is also a voluntary act. Even if this were not the case, no person has a right to use the excuse of addiction for overriding the rights of another person.
Does smoking in the presence of someone who doesn't consent a violation of that person's rights? Yes! Why? Because the other person is forced to breathe the smoke. People try to argue this isn't harmful, and therefore should be allowed. However, even if it weren't harmful, that doesn't make it acceptable.
The fact is, however, that secondhand smoke IS harmful. I will give you several examples.
First, take a close relative of mine, a lifelong nonsmoker, who was exposed to smoke at work. She died of lung cancer. All the medical studies in the world mean nothing to me if this actually happens. And it does.
Then I read about a woman who had asthma, who was exposed to smoke, had an attack, and died.
I will finally offer my own case. Certain tobacco blends cause me to go into coughing fits. You don't wanna know about these, but I will tell you this much: if I am exposed to a mere five minutes, I can have a coughing fit that lasts fifteen to twenty minutes, which is so severe that I cannot catch my breath and I could lose my lunch! Now fortunately, so far I have recovered. What if I had a weak heart, and this caused a heart attack? It could happen.
No person has the right to cause this kind of harm to another person, especially by means of an act that is voluntary, and which could be exercised under SLIGHTLY different circumstances, with very little inconvenience to the smoker.
I will next consider the practical consequences of allowing people to smoke under certain circumstances.
Circumstances when people smoke
But this begs the question. If you own a gun, you don't have a right to point it at people and shoot them. You also don't have the right to hand the gun to someone else and allow him to shoot that person. Your property rights end when an aggression is involved.
Is there aggression in smoking? Absolutely! When an act has the potential to cause the kind of harm I have discussed, it is aggression.
Your right to control your own property does not include the right to give a visitor the right to aggress against another visitor. If you open your property to the public, and invite the public, you are responsible to make sure that everyone who accepts your invitation leaves without harm.
Oh, but people argue that the person who is susceptible to smoke has the choice not to come in the first place.
This is true if and ONLY if the fact that smoking is allowed is placed in all advertisements, and the person who is seeking your services can find viable alternatives. Oh, but people will argue, the person who owns property isn't responsible for lack of alternatives. Well, yes and no. If a person is offering an essential service to the public, and he is the only one offering this in the area, there is a certain responsibility to offer a safe and healthy environment. Furthermore, even though some people would argue that if the owner maintains a separate room for nonsmokers, this should be adequate. Well, it's not. Smoke can get into the other room.
Let's take some specific cases.
Restaurants
Here is something that happened to me. I was traveling, and I had a motel reservation in a small town. I got there slightly after 9 pm. All the restaurants in the small town were closed, except one: the one in the casino. So I had to go there to eat. But, some people will argue, you can find another source of food. Well, not really. When I'm traveling, I need a decent meal, because if I do not have one, I have problems with narcolepsy, and I endanger myself and others.
So I am being asked to endanger people because I am adversely affected by smoking.
What about the smoker? Why doesn't he simply postpone smoking for five minutes, go to his car, and smoke there?
Do I have to forego a decent meal so he can light up five minutes sooner? The inconvenience is highly disproportionate.
The final thing to remember is that smoking is voluntary, and breathing is not. Therefore, the person who can voluntarily control his actions has a responsibility not to do something to harm someone who is engaging in a basic act for the preservation of his own life, an act he cannot refrain from exercising.
Then consider this possibility. I, as an adult, take my child into a place where people are smoking. Does the child have the right to refuse to go there? No. Only I have a right to take him there, even against his will. Shall we prohibit children from entering a place because there might be smoking there? That's ridiculous! I hope I don't have to explain why! It is well known that children who are exposed to smoke often develop asthma, and suffer attacks when exposed to smoke. If the only place I can get a decent meal for my child is in a restaurant where smoking is permitted, then prohibiting children is simply asinine. We ALL have a duty to protect children from harmful environments.
These same arguments apply to other places of business. Employees also have a right to breathe smoke-free air at work. Asking a person to give up his job because he is sensitive to smoke isn't reasonable.
Economic considerations
Folks, this is nonsense. We have a no-smoking ordinance in the city where I live, and people still go to restaurants. The law provides that if a restaurant wants to permit smoking, it can become a private club, and then only person who consent to being exposed to smoke will be allowed to enter. You know what? I REALLY don't have a problem with that as long as those services can be obtained elsewhere reasonably. Well, I know about one such private club. I actually went there once. They were selling cards for a dollar apiece, and I had to buy a card. The reason I went was because I was invited there. If I had known they permitted smoking, I wouldn't have accepted the invitation.
And guess what. None of the restaurants that observed the smoking ban went out of business. But the private club I'm talking about, did.
Even smokers don't always appreciate breathing other people's smoke.
A smoking ban saves a restaurant money. It costs money to clean up after the filthy deposits that smoke leaves everywhere. It costs money to provide medical care for the employees, both smokers and nonsmokers. It costs money to make up for days at work missed by people affected by smoke. In the long run, the restaurant will be saved a major expense.
I have eaten in only one restaurant where the room was open everywhere and there was smoking, where I didn't have a problem. I don't know how they did it. Maybe they had ionizers. I'm not convinced an ionizer is the answer, though, because it may take smoke out of the air, and deposit it on the walls (the smoke has to go someplace) and on other people's lungs.
If people are HONEST, they will ADMIT that smoking bans don't put people out of business. When everyone has to follow the same law, then the businesses do fine, and arguing to the contrary is simply nonsense. You say you know of a business that went under? Are you SURE it wasn't for some other reason?
The bottom line is that if a person wants to smoke, he can wait FIVE minutes and do it in a private place where he won't be assaulting anyone else.
The potential harm of banning smoking is so minuscule compared to the potential harm of allowing it. Since the law has to protect everyone, asking someone to suffer a minor inconvenience to avoid life-threatening harm is completely reasonable, and anybody who thinks otherwise simply isn't thinking straight.
Oh, and by the way. Do you know why we have anti-smoking ordinances? It is because some smokers were highly inconsiderate of others, and were subjecting unconsenting people to smoke constantly, and wouldn't honor the right of other people to breathe clean air. So those smokers only have themselves to blame.
Keep smoking among consenting adults in private.
If this still bothers you, stop smoking.
Red Herrings and Straw Men
I'll add more as I think of them.
But here's a good one: if they pass these anti-smoking laws, next thing you know, they'll be passing laws against wearing perfume (or take your pick). Know why that's invalid? Well because these other behaviors don't really have an effect directly on me. If perfume causes an allergic reaction, it's comparable to smoking. But what about laws prohibiting drinking? If you drink in my presence, you're not forcing me to drink. But if you smoke in my presence, you're forcing me to smoke.
Maybe you want to drink and drive. That is illegal, and it should be. But drinking itself isn't illegal.
Smoking in my presence is more like someone slipping Rohypnol in my drink while I am not looking. Rohypnol is the date rape drug. Putting a dangerous medication in someone else's drink is a form of assault. So is smoking in someone's presence. But if you are drinking and you're not forcing me to drink, it's not comparable, so there will be no law.
by patgoltz
Explore related pages
Cupcakes- The fun of eating your own little piece of heaven. A cake, all for you.&nb...
Sleep Time for Your Baby- Let's do this thing! Probably one of the most requested tip lens for any mother....
My Homeschooling Articles- This lens has general homeschooling information, product reviews, general educat...
Smiley Crayon Faces can hide the truth about Child Abuse.- Children are very good at keeping secrets, even smiley crayon drawings can hide...
Grug Books, by Ted Prior- The Grug series is being reprinted by Simon and Schuster and will be available i...
Fun Projects for Kids
