Come on John. No where in the Declaration say's it's a privlidge to smoke. It is something that is legal in the States. Then why not BAN the cigs. I don't smoke, never did. But I worked with a lot that did and I never thought I was too good to move out of their smoke. And the few times I was cornered with second hand smoke, the people obliged me by moving away. I bet the FRAMERS of our Constitution were all smoking and drinking the suds when they were contributing their ideas to the writings of that paper. end of rant.
I gotta give you that, the Declaration of Independence doesn't have anything to do with rights, privileges, or smoking. It is an announcement that the thirteen colonies currently at war with England were now independent.
The Constitution and its amendments, on the other hand, define your rights. They are specific but broad in scope.
You are a bit unclear on this privilege thing. A privilege is granted by a government. At issue here is not the privilege to smoke, that has nothing to do with it, nor does the legality of the product. In a licensing situation the government places restrictions on the licensee as to the requirements associated with the granting of (privelege of) the license.
I own a motel. It is a licensed business. I have to have smoke detectors, beds made a certain way, fire extinguishers, lighted exit signs, and as of July 5th I may not allow anyone to smoke inside the building. If I have dirty sheets, no fire extinguishers, or smoking in the building I lose my business license, that is, I lose my privilege to do business.
The issue that has been debated here for the last month is not a constitutional law issue. The government absolutely, positively has the power to do what it has done. The issue here is that many posters feel that the government is simply too intrusive in our lives, and shouldn't be controlling the behavior of its citizens in the use of a completely legal product. They are concerned that the government will just keep taking these privileges away (the government cannot legislate rights away).
The flaw in that logic is that the government controls our use of perfectly legal products all the time. A car is legal, but you must be 16 to drive, have a license, and have insurance.
With the exception of illegal products or activities you can still pretty much do what you want on your own property because that is a right. You can smoke, drive without a license, get drunk, and shoot out your TV while sitting in your underwear. You can't beat your spouse or sell heroin.
Places of public gathering operate under social conventions (politeness, if you will) and government regulation (privilege). In this case, the social conventions that our society follows did not succeed in stopping smoking in public places. Since fewer than 20% of people smoke, and since the use of the product is hazardous to non users exposed to it, the government legislated where social conventions failed, and many people do not like government legislating social conventions (behavior).
In the last month of discussion, this always leads to the "yeah, but the're gonna take away my snowmobile, my Big Mac, and my guns" argument. The flaw in this argument is that the non smoking majority has successfully convinced the government that smoking injures those that are exposed to it while the smoker is using the product as intended.
The government IS too intrusive in our lives, I agree. But a smoker using a legal product as it is intended to be used is harmful to me. A snowmobiler's use of a legal product (a snowmobile) as it is intended to be used is not harmful to me. Big difference.
People don't like to be told how to behave, particularly not by their government. But the key to this whole argument is that the legal use of tobacco is harmful to the non-user. If you sit next to me in a bar and fart I may not like it but it didn't harm anyone. If cigarette smoking was not harmful to the non-user this would be a totally different argument.
Now, this leads to the "I don't believe the science" argument or the "I don't care you can leave" argument. Well, I do believe the science, and I do believe I have an equal right to frequent public places of commerce without being harmed.
Whether legal or not, using the product AS IT IS INTENDED TO BE USED cause non users in public places of commerce to be injured. And that's the crux of the whole argument..
To solve the problem one of the two parties must alter their behavior or leave. On one side is 80% of the population and they are not engaging in a behavior harmful to others. The other side is only 20% of the population, and, coincidentally, they are also the portion of the population engaging in the harmful behavior. So, since they are the minority, and their behavior is the cause of the health risk, the government has legislated that in places of public commerce the behavior must not occur.
