Smoking ban about health protection, not rights trampling

I believe that people should have the right to do what they want, as not to implicate the health of another in a public place. What if someone has asthma?

Regardless, some people are too stupid to stop smoking on their own that we need to government to step in and help them stop, before they kill themselves. Or worse yet cost all us non-smokers billions of dollars in tax dollars because they can't break their habit.

Smokers, why don't you just pull a trigger, it's quicker and less expensive for the rest of us. Plus your family members don't have to watch you suffer a slow ugly death, and they can get over you quicker. There, I said it.

reply

The logic that the "right to do what they want, as not to implicate the health of another in a public place" is not acceptable because it is open-ended and unlimited. By that reasoning, anything at all can become a target, and at the end of the day there will be no right to do anything, because anything is and can be potentially dangerous to health.
If one is stupid enough to believe that by living under a glass bell is going to live forever, he is perfectly free to go under that glass bell. But he should not force others to live under a glass bell too. When it comes to liberty against paranoia on health, the choice should be clear to any sane person.

reply

When debating the pros and cons of smoking bans, we need to ask whether it
makes sense to protect and defend private individuals' rights to their
property. If we agree that private property rights should be protected, then
we should make a clear distinction between private property and public
property.

Omitting legal jargon and using common sense, private property belongs to a
private owner, and public property belongs to the public or to some
government entity that represents the interests of the general public.

Those who favor smoking bans prefer to consider bars and restaurants to be
public property simply because the public is invited to visit those
establishments. However, opponents of smoking bans recognize that the
invitations to the public are by the graces of the private owners, and the
property remains private property.

Let's consider for a moment that you own a home and that you consider your
home to be your private property. Do you give up your private property
rights when you tell someone to, "Drop by any time?" What if you also tell
that person to, "Bring some other folks along?"

Have you just issued a standing invitation to the public? Is your home no
longer private and now considered to be public property? Where do we draw
the line?

There is confusion between public property and private property primarily
because some people, such as anti-smoking proponents, want to elevate their
desires to the level of being legal rights. They choose to ignore what
should be a clear distinction between private and public property so they
can pretend that private businesses are actually owned by the public,
thereby giving the public the right to control the use of the property while
preventing the true property owner from controlling the use of his own
property. Many business owners who take the risks and pay the price of
ownership of their business property are suffering in areas of the country
where smoking bans have been put into force. Those who promote smoking bans
fail to see (or don't care) that their desires for sweeping smoke-free
environments are causing hardships for honest, hard-working people and their
families. They fail to see (or don't care) that their desires should be
secondary to the rights of others.

Those supporting smoking bans know that they have the option of not
supporting businesses that allow smoking. They know that they may patronize
businesses that choose to ban smoking. But that is not enough for them. Do
they not recognize the importance of respecting people's right to control
their own property? Do they not recognize the value of freedom?

The desires of anti-smoking groups should not take precedence over the
rights of private citizens. When one person's desires are allowed to trump
another person's rights, then all our rights can easily be swept away, and
we have no protection from the tyranny of the majority.

Thomas Laprade

reply

To fellow smokers - Stop apologizing for Second Hand Smoke. All news mediae are refusing to inform their readers, listeners, and watchers, that there are researchers, scientists, doctors, politicians, and millions of voters, who do NOT believe the anti-smoking false claims about Second Hand Smoke - SHS is NOT a Statistically Significant Health Risk to others.

The average Smoker exhales less than 500 milligrams of Second Hand Smoke per day, - the average Car exhales at least 2.2 MILLION milligrams of Second Hand Smoke per day, and it definetely seeps inside the vehicle to poison all the passengers. The exhaust systems on Cars only 'trap' most of the visible particles so we are not aware our cars are poisoning the entire planet, us, and our kids, every day. Car poison is invisible which makes it all the more deadly than tobacco smoke. It's Cars that need banning Not tobacco smokers.

Anti-smoking is a very slippery slope from hatred of second hand smoke, to Hatred of Smokers. Anti-Smokers are teaching kids to hate smokers and 'anything goes'. I truly fear 'what next' will mean smokers' ghettos and drive-by shootings of smokers. Don't Sneer at that ! In Toronto kids are shooting each other almost every day, and, get away with it. I was recently chased along the city highway by a car of recklessly driving teenagers screaming "CANCER STICK MURDERER", like a Jew being chased by Hitler Youth. Which is all the more bizarre because their one car exhales the equivalent per day of 11,000 tobacco smokers !

Anti-smoking is now being used as a template for many other anti-something campaigns too. Stop apologizing for SHS, Stop Anti-smoking, or else, you could be the next one being hunted for something somebody else hates.

Steve Hartwell
www.reducedriskcigarettes.ca

reply

Brian
check Steve's website

reply

The suggestion partnered anti smoker lobby organizations represent or replace real public consensus or opinions, is misleading and complicit with theological fraud. The level of hatred being promoted in communities with tax dollars being used to pay for those promotions is beyond belief. Tax dollars created by smoking are are an essential element entrenched in government budgets internationally. The moral deficit in taxing a medical dependency has yet to be justified. All named groups unanimously defend such measures. It is just coincidence those groups also profit from the fortunate lapse in moral evaluations. It is also fortunate the same companies who finance the largest portion of anti smoker lobby promotion also sell alternative products. If a gypsy charged to remove a curse from you home it is no less fraudulent or any less criminal.

reply