This is going to be short. Or not. I am completely sick of the editorials that I'm reading in the paper from people who are against the smoking ban. I have no problem with one voicing an opinion. But please, be relatively informed.
1. You do NOT, I repeat DO NOT have a fundamental right or a constitutional right to smoke in a public place. Period. It does not say that in the constitution. Furthermore, none of the amendments provide a fundamental right to smoke nor has the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution as providing a fundamental right to smoke in public.
2. It is surprising that some make the argument stating: "If it is so bad then the federal government should ban it." As nice as that would be, I am not a 100% that the federal government has that power in the Commerce Clause or Interstate Commerce Clause at this point. Likewise, and I am generalizing here, those who make this type of argument tend to oppose federal government intrusion into their lives. I suppose the federal government through the Supreme Court could ban smoking in public along the same lines as it prohibited hotels from banning people of color. In essence, this is using the interstate Commerce Clause (if I remember correctly). In the end, I support this argument. Let the feds ban smoking in public and then I do not have to worry in any state about my air being polluted.
3. Smoking is NOT the same as drinking alcohol or eating fast foods. This is a little lesson on cause and effect. When you smoke (or breathe), you must exhale the smoke out somewhere (unless you are magic or have some odd respiratory system). You inhale and then, wait for it, you exhale. Unless you are dead, you typically cannot do one without the other. Ergo, inhaling smoke will cause an individual to exhale smoke always, and as far as my limited anatomy and physiology knowledge goes, without exception. HOWEVER, drinking alcohol does NOT always cause one to drive, then drive recklessly, carelessly, or negligently, and then hit another car or person. There is no automatic cause and effect. In other words, you can drink without driving. It is an unfortunate event that sometimes occurs, but not always. Also, eating trans fat does not necessarily affect another person to the same extent or perhaps at all. Yes, it might increase one's health insurance rates because trans fats might cause arteries to block, blood pressure to rise, and cardiac arrests and strokes to ensue thereby causing a bigger burden on insurance companies. This is not the same thing. Again, there is no automatic cause and effect. Say it with me: inhale and exhale. Inhale and exhale. You cannot have one without the other. Thus, one inhales smoke and always exhales smoke.
4. And now, the argument that states: "If you don't want to be around smoke, find a job elsewhere." How selfish can one be? I'm sorry but I think one's ability to earn a livelihood is much more important than one's ability to smoke cigarettes in public. There are a finite number of jobs, especially in our city. To force someone to choose between one's health and one's job is absurd and again, selfish of the smoker.
5. Finally, the slippery slope argument: if you ban smoking, then what next? OH MY GOD WE ARE GOING TO GO RAMPANT AND BAN EVERYTHING!!! AHHHHRRRRR!!!! IT'S A BANNING FREE FOR ALL! YEEEHAAA!. In all seriousness, I generally don't like slippery slope arguments because they tend not to occur. It is illogical that if you ban smoking in public, an activity where one must inhale and exhale secondary smoke (See #3 above), Big Brother will begin banning X, Y, and Z. This is more of a knee jerk reaction to a proposal than a valid argument. Plenty of other laws have been enacted to prohibit a particular activity without creating a slippery slope.
I am positive there are numerous other arguments that have been brought up and I am not addressing them. As one who has resided in and visited different cities with smoking bans, I must say it is delightful to enjoy an evening with friends without being subjected to one's second hand smoke. And if one is worried about bars and restaurants failing, these restaurants and bars were just as packed, if not more so, than before the smoking ban.
Labels: angry tirade, smoking
