Do “smoker’s rights” equal “no rights”?

Christopher Ecke writes (in a WDH LTE ‘Smokers have no right to kill’ regarding smoking bans):
“I do agree smokers have rights … but they don’t have the right to jeopardize my health, the health of my family, or the health of others smart enough not to smoke.”

Since the gist of the letter is that people who choose to indulge in tobacco smoke should instead be compelled to “wear the shoes” of the dedicated non-smoker, I wonder … what specifically are the ‘rights’ that Mr Ecke acknowleges smokers to have?

Do they have the ‘right’ to start, own, patronize, and operate businesses (ie bars and restaurants) that cater specifically to the desires of some people to smoke, or are avowed non-smokers the only ones entitled to  businesses that cater to their specific smoking preference?

OG writes:
“Smokers spend more moneys on themselves than to their starving family. I considered smokers are junkies and irresponsible persons.”

Of course, the same might be said about persons who spend their money on fishing boats, ATV’s, snowmobiles, power tools, hunting, fishing, beer, video games, nascar, the latest fashions, cable tv, dvd’s, and any number of other toys or pastimes that people compulsively indulge in.  Smokers are no more or less inclined to spend (or waste) their money on “nonessentials” than anyone else.
 

Imposing change …

Gary writes:
“However, to encourage healthier lifestyles, a license fee could be imposed on places permitting smoking and that revenue could be used to fund a tax credit to bars and restaurants that prohibit smoking. Gradually smoke-fee would become the norm.”

The editorial title to the letter was a bit ironic: “Incentives, not law, can FORCE change …” [emphasis added]

In his letter, however, Gary stated it much more accurately – pointing out that incentives could be used to ENCOURAGE change, rather than imposing arbitrary mandates or bans.

Passing the Smoking Ban Buck …

Peter writes: [regarding groups who want/don't want a state-wide smoking ban - 1) Smokers, who don't want the ban -2) Non-smokers, who do want the ban - and 3) Non-smokers, who don't want the ban as a matter of principle]
“you missed one [DrRent]: Smokers who want the ban.   I don’t know how large a group it is, but I know of a couple of people who belong to it, including one member of the Daily Herald’s Editorial Board.  They are people who recognize that their habit – their addiction – shouldn’t be forced upon unwilling coworkers. It’s a matter of principle, too. “

The “hopelessly addicted” smoking member of the WDH editorial board is of course perfectly free to personally refrain from smoking in the presence of his or her objecting co-workers.

He/she is also perfectly free to refrain from purchasing cigarettes, sticking one in his mouth, and lighting up AT ALL – anywhere, without requiring that the state somehow do for him what he somehow can’t do for himself, by prohibiting it to everyone.

Smoking … The Envelope Please …

Gail writes:
“Let’s face it, the debate on secondhand smoke is over. The science is clear there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. [...] Increasing the tax on a package of cigarettes by $1.25 is quite drastic, and highly effective.”

So here we have another issue where the “debate is over”. Interesting. I guess we can all just go home now.

Compared to the health risks of so many other things in our lives, it has been conclusively determined that tobacco smoke is the evil villain par excellance bar none, that justifies all things regulatory and taxing.

Blowing Smoke … “Leveling” the playing field …

Peter writes:
“A statewide ban would level the playing field, the WRA thinks, because most local smoking bans excuse taverns and give them a competitive edge. ”

Or, one could also “level the playing field” (if that’s the objective) by REMOVING the ban that’s causing the competitive disadvantage.

And if 3/4 of the population are non-smokers, and if that’s such a non-starter and a money-loser for the taverns because of the “bad image” it creates, then why is being “smoke free” placing the restaurants at a DISadvantage in the first place?

It’s such a red herring.

Bottom line – if you don’t like smoking, then don’t go to places where it is catered to. If that hurt’s the business of the owner, odd’s are they’ll change their policy to win you back. If smoker’s give them all the business they want or need, then that’s their business.

Freedom to risk …

When we give up or abdicate our freedom to choose to engage in risky, dangerous, or even potentially dangerous activities, there won’t be much left to life to be worth living.

There isn’t one activity in life that, carried to it’s logical conclusion, does not involve some potential and life-or-health-threatening risk to the individual, or by extention to the community, because of the “loss of productivity, the collective cost of healthcare, the early demise of a loved one and provider”, and so on.

Peter likes to camp, fish, and enjoy the out-of-doors. That’s dangerous. He could fall, hurt himself, stab himself with a fishhook, poke his eye out, start a forest fire, or get lost and require the expenditure of millions of dollars to locate and rescue him. It also degrades the environment, as his footprints compact the soil, kills the plants, and lead to erosion.

The public dangers of tax addiction …

Glasshammer writes – responding to a column regarding proposals to increase taxes on cigarettes to fund health care programs in Wisconsin:
“Choosing nicotine as the flavor of the day, to tax and single out from the other prevailing addictions WE ALL suffer from, at least indirectly if not as primary participants, is almost a cowardly thing to do….Taking on alcohol or fast food would take immensely more courage from Governer Doyle and all the other dragon slayers out there.”

Of course, it begs the question – why should they(Gov Doyle, et al) take on any of those things mentioned at all (fast food, etc), from a legislative and public policy standpoint?

In tobacco’s case, the answer is simple: the tobacco prohibitionists have demonized cigarettes and smokers to the degree that they are now an easy target for the insatiable financial appetites of the do-gooders and lawbenders in Madison.

Private property and public accomodation …

A private establishment is just that – privately owned. Just because you put a sign over the door and issue a general invitation for people to come and do business with you, does not make it any less a private property – even though the law has more recently been twisted to give it the rather amorphous definition of “public accomodation” – meaning, “you own it, take the risks, and pay the taxes, but we (government) get to tell you how you will cater to your customers and staff.”

Just because you are “open to the public” doesn’t mean that anyone is forced to enter, or even to work there. Anyone can freely choose to go elsewhere, if they would rather not partake of your ambiance and aromatically smoke-filled atmosphere.

Liberal Co-Dependency Syndrome …

“Co-dependency” is a popular term today in mental health and therapy circles.

Co-dependency is perhaps most often associated with issues relating to alcohol and drugs, and the counseling that goes along with drug dependents and alcoholics.

A co-dependent relationship is defined by the codependent who, in the case of alcoholics or drugs, is the partner that tries to “save” the addict from their substance of choice, and essentially, from themselves.

A co-dependent relationship may also come in the form of being an overly-generous and overly-helpful friend, spouse, or other relative.

Co-dependents are all about being the overly-conscientious caretaker for another person, often to a degree that is harmful to one’s self, the other person, and to other relationships.

It’s all about trying to “fix” the other person in your life, sometimes whether or not they need fixing, based on your own assessment of what is “best” for them.

Private property and the super state …

Peter writes:
“… back to restaurants. It’s private property, right? So if you complain that your meat is overcooked, the chef can stab you with a filet knife. Don’t like it? Eat somewhere else. It’s private property, and the owner can do as he pleases. He can serve your 16-year-old beer, too. It’s his property, right? … I’ve never heard a more specious argument than this private property line. We all count upon government regulation of what goes on on private property – every day.”

Perhaps PW is engaging in hyperbolic sarcasm again, by going to extremes.

Just because a little bit of something might be helpful or tolerable, does not imply that a whole lot more of the same is even better.

By the logic illustrated above, a paper cut would be best treated with a body cast.

You don’t believe in private property rights – except possibly your own. Ok PW, we get it. Everything not owned outright by government should be regulated and micromanaged by it to the nth degree.