The "Right" to Smoke

Currently, only a select few states restrict the public right to smoke. These laws are catching on in other states. A friend of mine, a smoker, who lives in Oregon, brought the matter to my attention. His concern is that he is not able to smoke at his place of work and that the further restrictions that will soon be placed upon the location in which he chooses to smoke will infringe upon his rights.
In writing my papers, I always try to get a little bit of research before stating my opinion and, when available, I discuss the issue with others so that I may fully develop my thoughts.
My friend, we shall call him Avoc, states that he is not permitted to smoke outside the building in which he works or in the parking lot thereof. Though I do not know the particular nature of the land ownership of the area surrounding the aforementioned building I may say that any land owned privately, either by a person or company, is subject to the limitations set by that owner. If the owner of the building and parking lot puts up signs, which Avoc indicated they had, which prohibit smoking in that area then they may legally enforce the prohibition.
The laws restricting smoking in public places are generally state laws and apply to restaurants, businesses and other public buildings. Some towns go so far as to restrict smoking while walking on the sidewalk but these are local laws and are few and far between. Through my reasoning, I can not understand why one would choose to smoke in these places at all.
With eternal thanks to my Junior State group, and the discussion we had at last night’s meeting, I brought up some points which I believe illustrate my point perfectly. Say you go to a fancy restaurant, which has both smoking and non-smoking areas, and order a $30 meal. Assuming that you are a smoker, you are seated in the smoking section. When your meal arrives, you take a drag on your cigarette and tap the ash into the ashtray you have positioned next to your plate. However, when the ash falls, a few flakes fly onto your meal. How do you feel now? Would you really want to eat an ashen Filet Mignon for $30? Now think of those people who are seated in the non-smoking section. This is not a separate room or alienated section. The smoke transcends the signs enforcing the two “distinct” sections and the innocent non-smokers are forced to inhale second-hand smoke throughout their meals. From my own experiences I can honestly say that I don’t care much for inhaling the second-hand junk that permeates my eating area in a smoky restaurant.
It has been proven that second-hand smoke is three times as likely to cause cancer than first-hand smoke is. This was concluded from studying children in a household where one or both parent smoked and had no hereditary history of cancer. It is no wonder, then, that in the presence of excess amounts of second-hand smoke many people develop headaches and become nauseous. Smokers may have the right to smoke but do they have the right to make others sick because of their addiction? The answer is no. Even in the Declaration of Independence it is clearly stated that people are granted the “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It also says that, ”to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.” Certainly, the right to life would include the right to health. Therefore, government has the right and responsibility to step in and tell people where, on public property and in public places, one may or may not smoke.
There are certain logical reasons why one might choose whether or not they smoke. The fact is that it is dangerous, no matter where it is done. However, could we think of a stupider place to smoke than around flammable liquids such as gasoline and oil? Avoc mentioned that one of his favorite places to smoke is in the parking lot outside his work. Smoking in a parking lot around cars and the fumes of combustibles is just about on the same plane as opening a bottle of nail polish remover in the same room as a burning candle without opening a window. (In case you’re wondering, I almost did that but I caught myself before I proved to be a complete moron.) The point is that all you’re doing by smoking is endangering yourself and, when in public places, others by subjecting your body to toxic chemicals.
If you’re wondering whether the Constitution protects the smokers or non-smokers, here is the logician’s answer: there is nothing to be found directly relating the use of tobacco or other drugs to laws specified within the Constitution. However, the Constitution was set up to ensure the rights and privileges of all people in the country. Therefore, the smokers have the right to smoke but not to the detriment of the non-smokers around them. It is perfectly constitutional, and logical, to limit the areas where smoking is permitted to private property. If businesses, restaurants or bars would like to maintain the availability to smoke in their establishments, they may set up a designated and separately enclosed smoking section or install smoking booths.
I typed this as the original introduction to this dissertation but quickly realized that it was a topic all its own.

Throughout the past several millennia, humans have found various ways of using plants in order to alter their bodies and minds. Whether it was the henna used to dye the hair of the Egyptians or the indigo ink used the tattoo the people of Indonesian islands, we have seeked to change ourselves in order to reflect a more ideal image. This extends dramatically into the present day, particularly with the media dictating what is and is not “in style.” The children of today look to the generation above them to see how they should act, how they should dress and how they should speak. Not the least of the influences that Generation Y through the Baby Boomers has on these youngsters is to show them right from wrong. So what does it say to them when 70% of high school aged youths have tried smoking and 11% are addicted? Is it our right to get kids hooked before they have a chance to realize what they’re getting into? Should we be allowed to expose them, not only to second-hand smoke, but also to the pressure of those fools who choose to smoke?

If for no other purpose than the effort to rid the world of smoking altogether, I urge others to agree with my stance. Smoking may be a privilege shared by approximately 27% of the adult population of this country but smokers have no right to destroy the lungs of others. For those smokers reading this, you can deal with waiting until you get home before you light up. This is a way to get off the nicotine, darling friends. Take the opportunity. For those people living with legal restrictions on smoking, breathe deep and tell all those smokers to back off, they’re giving us all a headache!