Smoker's Vs. Non-Smoker's Rights

| | Comments (2)

Digger's Realm trackbacked to my article on California declaring secondhand smoke a pollutant, angry at the "violation" or "smoker's rights" and saying "Searchlight Crusade who thinks smokers should be taken out and shot."



No Digger, I don't want you shot, and that's not what I said. Read the article. I want you to grow up.



Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, and this is one case where the People's Republik of Kalifornia has it more right than anyone I'm aware of.



Either you are an adult, and you may choose to smoke, or you are not, and I am justified in keeping what has been more than adequately proven to be a deadly habit out of your reach.



But being an adult means more than just "I'm old enough to choose for myself!" which any five year old can claim, and most do. It means being responsible for the consequences of your actions, not just to yourself but to others.



I, and a fair sized minority of people out there, are allergic to tobacco byproducts. Cigarette smoke, among other things. Your rights stop at my nose, but your tobacco smoke doesn't. In my younger days, when California was less enlightened on this subject than we are now, I regularly spent entire weeks going around sneezing my face off, coughing and hacking and wheezing, because some immature child could not be responsible about their emissions. Usually, about the time the attack was starting to let up, some other egotistical child brought another one on. It still happens even today.



Nor are the people like myself, who are allergic, the only ones to suffer adverse effects. Your tobacco byproducts stink. They cause clothes and drapery and carpets and offices and elevators and taxicabs and everything else used by members of the public to stink. I know any number of people who become nauseated, some to the point of involuntary emission, because spoiled immature brats insist upon their so-called "right" to pollute the community environment to zero beneficial purpose. And there are even larger numbers of people who Just Don't Like It.



When you claim that you're an adult, and therefore have the "right" to smoke, you are also claiming responsibility for the emissions. There is no system of "rights" that I'm aware, under which you have the "right" to choose to lessen or eliminate anyone else's ability to enjoy the fruits of the community, much less the "right" to make someone else physically ill. Quite frankly, I'd rather you took a punch at my nose. That I can see coming, and that I have a pretty fair chance at blocking, and even if I fail to block the consequences are likely to be less severe, and also if I believe offensive action in self defense (I think a Louisville Slugger is about appropriate for most, reserving firearms for only the most egregious actions ;-) ), then the standards of the community anywhere have no serious difficulties with such responses when you have chosen to initiate force that way.



Smoker's clubs? Fine, so long as they are private property, and the sign at the entrance, all advertising, all logos, all business cards, and especially all help wanted ads include some prominent graphic or words that indicates smoking is allowed, and you are prepared to accommodate any persons who choose not to smoke whose employment duties carry them there (Delivery persons, repairfolk, etcetera. If they didn't choose to be employed there, but you need them to stay in business, and therefore an adult is responsible to make it so they don't have to breathe your poison. A good breathing apparatus with an air tank should be sufficient for most purposes). In public conveyances, on public lands, in public offices? No. Not under any circumstances that could lead to unwilling persons being exposed. The irresponsible behavior of smokers as a group has made it such that nobody rational should be willing to give that proportion of the smoking community who perhaps are mature enough to qualify as adults the opportunity.



In short Digger, your claim that any of your so-called "rights" has been violated is utterly without merit, as you would realize were you an adult in fact, instead of merely de jure. In fact, it is smokers in general who are violating the rights of the rest of us to breathe air unpolluted by at least that particular group of noxious chemicals.



So grow up. Or don't light up.

Categories

2 Comments

Ben said:

Should walking your dog in public be banned as well? Many people are alergic to dogs. What about seeing eye dogs?

Should public gardens be dug up, as some members of the public are allegic to flowers?

I totally agree that a person should not blow smoke in another person's face, but even just smoking near someone else?

Dan Melson said:

Not equivalent situations. Unlike cigarette smoke, dog dander is heavier than air. Unless the dog hangs around all day (dog homes, the pound, dog services), the effect is negligible. This potential hazard is avoidable under the same system as smoking clubs in the post.

I have yet to see dog dander as out of control as the smoke from any cigarette. Keep your dog from jumping on folks, etcetera, unless you know that person likes it. This is all common courtesy. Yeah, dogs can stink. It's got to get fairly bad, and in an enclosed space, to be the anything like factor cigarette smoke gets to be immediately in casual emission situations and much smaller doses. And for those extremely rare folks who may be that allergic to dogs, take your dog elsewhere and avoid that person with your dog..

I'm allergic to dog dander myself. A few easily undertaken precautions and no problems. I'm more allergic to cat dander than cigarette smoke, and we managed to keep my allergies under control when my wife's cat was still alive.

Public gardens are public gardens. If flowers cause allergies, chances are good grass will. Or almost any plants. People allergic to flowers probably couldn't go there unless we paved it over with concrete, and if we pave the world over we shortly have no oxygen.

None of these arguments apply to cigarette smoke, which there is no reason to introduce in the first place, produces no beneficial results, and is generally noxious to every one - except the smoker themselves.

Them's the facts. Deal with it.

Leave a comment

Copyright 2005,2006,2007 Dan Melson All Rights Reserved

Search my sites or the web!
 
Web www.searchlightcrusade.net
www.danmelson.com
--Blogads--

blog advertising
--Blogads--

blog advertising --Blogads--

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dan Melson published on January 27, 2006 4:55 PM.

Calif. Says Secondhand Smoke a Pollutant was the previous entry in this blog.

Games Lenders Play, Part V is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

-----------------
Advertisement
-----------------

My Links

-----------------
Advertisement
-----------------
Powered by Movable Type 4.0
If you don't see an answer to your question, please consider asking me via email. dm (at) searchlightcrusade (dot) net. I'll bet money you're not the only one who wants to know!

Requests for reprint rights, contact dm (at) searchlightcrusade (dot) net! Subscribe to Searchlight Crusade
**********
Blogroll Me!
Subscribe with Bloglines



Powered by FeedBlitz

--Advertisement--
--Advertisement--
**********
C'mon! I need to pay for this website! If you want to buy or sell Real Estate in San Diego County, or get a loan anywhere in California, contact me! I cover San Diego County in person and all of California via internet, phone, fax, and overnight mail.
**********
Contact me! dm (at) searchlight crusade (dot) net (Eliminate the spaces and change parentheticals to the symbols, of course)
Most Recent Posts
********** Advertisement **********