Okay, it’s time for a rant. A rant against government trying to regulate every aspect of our lives. Government tends to forget the Declaration of Independence, upon which our Constitution was drafted, gives us certain rights and privileges, those being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn’t make any qualifications. It doesn’t say we are entitled to these rights and privileges as long as the current government agrees. It is generally believed and understood that the only unstated qualification is that we are free to pursue these things as long as we don’t harm other people. So, we must abide by the laws of the land.
Our founding fathers held the right of the citizens to guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It didn’t say government could pass laws to limit what we do in our pursuit of happiness if that pursuit was unhealthy for us. Drinking and smoking tobacco were both things out founding fathers enjoyed and in many cases were in the business of producing alcohol and tobacco products.
If New York State, and many other states and municipalities, continue to pass laws like the excessive tax on tobacco and alcohol, they are effectively legislating to elimination, or at a minimum, trying to legislation the end of these pursuits by their citizenry. I mean a 75 percent tax on tobacco in New York State? Seriously???? Not allowing a person to open a business that allows smoking in restaurants or bars if the owners wish to run a restaurant or bar where only smokers can be admitted, is denying a person the opportunity to make an income. What is the harm if only smokers are allowed in the establishment?
Forces are trying to eliminate smoking everywhere in our society. Mayor Bloomberg proposed, and the Common Council passed a law in NYC to prohibit smoking outside in NYC parks and beaches. Outside. I can see in buildings and restaurants and bars that allow non-smokers. But then why not allow a room in the establishment where only smokers can go to?
It is a basic infringement to our rights as US citizens. Our forefathers are collectively turning in their graves. Our military has considered not allowing smoking by our soldiers. You have got to be kidding. Men and women who are being put in harm’s way for their country would not be allowed to have a smoke after returning from a dangerous mission?
I understand the argument that smoking is generally unhealthy, we all have seen the warnings, and sickness related to smoking do increase the cost of treating these illnesses and our health insurance premiums. I draw a distinction, however, between cigarette smoking and cigar and pipe smoking. Cigarette smoking is far more unhealthy than cigar or pipe smoking. There are many studies that bear this out. Go to http://www.cigarrights.org/ . The simple reason is that cigar and pipe smokers do not directly inhale the smoke and cigarettes use far more chemicals in their manufacture. This argument also doesn’t hold water when you look at the devastating effect the drinking and abuse of alcohol has on the cost of health care in this country. It far outweighs tobacco, yet alcohol is not uniformly banned in the majority of America. With alcohol we have the choice. We weigh the dangers and act accordingly. The same should be true with tobacco.
In my opinion, I should be allowed to partake in any activity as long as it does not infringe on the health and well-being of another person. Absent t total ban on smoking, people are still going to smoke. If alcohol is banned, people are still going to drink. Can you say Prohibition?
Douglas Boettner
p.s.
What really twists me is that state legislators, who are breaking laws in greater and greater numbers with kickbacks from contractors, tampering with absentee ballots, extra-marital affairs, improperly favoring the hiring of companies who donate heavily to their campaigns and other campaign finance irregularities, refuse to serious enact new and stronger ethic reforms to govern their legislative bodies and activities. A bit of a double standard don’t you think?
Douglas Boettner's "Keeping It Real" Blog 
July 19, 2011 at 10:35 am |
Save some outrage for the “Sippy Cup Law,” if Cuomo ever puts his pen to that farce:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S05317&term=2011&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Text=Y
July 19, 2011 at 11:59 am |
“Okay, it’s time for a rant. A rant against government trying to regulate every aspect of our lives. Government tends to forget that our Constitution gives us certain rights, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn’t make any qualifications.”
Let’s start with the constitution. The constitution does not give rights–it recognizes them. Second “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is not in the constitution, it is in the Declaration of Independence. Don’t worry, you are not alone, Speaker Boehner makes that mistake as does Rush Limbaugh (though depending on what you are, you may not like that company). Third, the rights that are in the Bill of Rights are not absolute rights–government can have restrictions. E.g., you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.
BTW, I do not see smoking as a right–where do you get the idea that smoking is a right? (That is a question, not a statement).
Next, Bloomberg did not pass a law–he signed a bill from the NYC Council into law. If NYC voters do not like that law, they can get rid of the bums and put in a City Council that will repeal the law. That’s how it works.
Now let’s get to smoking. Smoking is a public health concern. Cigarettes is the only product I can think of when used properly will lead to addiction and then death. And an expensive death for that matter. The taxes and the restrictions are meant to stop people from smoking and then to pay for the medical expenses for them and others. The reason they stopped smoking on planes had to do with the pilots’ lungs more than anything else (second-hand smoke).
So smoking does impact on others, not just the smoker.
So Douglas, I assume you favor the legalization of all now-illegal drugs including heroin. Oh, should children have access to all those drugs and cigarettes and alcohol?
If a mature 13 year old girl wants to have sex with a 60 year old man, there should be no law about that too since in your thesis, it does not impact on anyone.
Is this right?
July 19, 2011 at 10:23 pm |
Brian, first of all my entry is a “rant”. It is not especially important whether what I state is from the Constitution or from the Declaration of Independence. The rant is simply to make a point. You would be more relevant if you responded to the basic issue of the rant….the erosion of our basic rights and liberties instead of trying to be a professor and correcting papers. Your example of the 13 year old girl and the 60 year old man is beyond ridiculous and desrevs no further comment.
Try to stay relevant to the issue. The issue is government legislating away our rights and , in effect, controlling our personal lives. And smoking is a right. I have the right to pick tobacco and roll it an smoke it in an open air venue like on a beach. You really don’t see that? Really?????
July 19, 2011 at 11:23 pm
Douglas, I honestly don’t know whether your reply was a joke or you are serious. If you are talking about erosion of rights and you don’t know what those rights are–where do we go from there.
The government through a law can easily stop people from growing tobacco legally the same way the government does not allow you to grow hemp even if you are going to make shoes from them (you can’t get high from hemp).
July 19, 2011 at 11:51 pm |
I guess I should explain that smoking is a privilege and not a right.
July 20, 2011 at 12:10 am |
You’re still missing the entire point and you continue to not respond to the issue and topic of the rant. After all you have written we still don’t know what your position or opinion is. I sometimes enjoy a good battle of wits, but this is not the place for it and in your specific case I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
July 20, 2011 at 11:55 am
My goodness Brian, you sound so bitter. It was actually you that was attacking me instead of providing your opinion and views on the issue at hand. If you want to have a conversation with me about my article I have provided my e-mail address for that. If you want to provide a response that my readers might ne interested in then please by all means respond in the blog. Otherwise keep your sarcasm to yourself.
July 20, 2011 at 12:34 pm
LOL! Bitter? Boy do you not know me (and neither do I know you). If your rant was so thought provoking, I, as well as any other reader of this blog, would have read all of the replies to your rant. But, as I stated below, there was only one (again one sentence and a link on the sippy cup law) other than mine.
The bottom line is that since smoking is not a right and therefore any limits on smoking will not be an example of the erosion of our rights. I stated that in my first response.
Look you posted what you posted in your own blog–it was wrong and therefore the opinion/rant is based on a false assumption. You are lucky one reader pointed that out to you.
Wow, someone reads and posts to your blog–be happy Douglas.
Don’t you have the ability to correct your errors.
Here is a suggestion. Get rid of the rights part that is wrong and the founding father crap and simply state that you oppose the government interfering with your life and figure our where the line is between where you want interference and where you don’t (e.g., cigarettes should be untouched, heroin should still be illegal). Got it?
You’re welcome 😉
July 20, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Still bitter!!!!!!! I’m so sorry. Pull up your skirt and dry your tears. You’re still not offering anything of use for the readers. Stop trying to correct people professor and start joining the real world. The world of academics isn’t it. “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach”. Seems to apply in your case.
Over and out.
July 20, 2011 at 12:36 am |
It appears everyone but you fully understands what I an stating in my article. Maybe this will help you understand.
Privilege: a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most.
Right: a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral.
July 20, 2011 at 11:49 am
Who is this everyone? Are my settings blocking other people’s posts? All I see is Mike’s one sentence reply about the “sippy cup law.” Who is everyone?
I am glad you looked up the two words, next time you talk about rights and the constitution, maybe you will also look up the constitution and the cases interpreting it.
July 20, 2011 at 11:58 am
You really aren’t that intelligent are you….most of my replies to my articles come to me at the e-mail address I provide. Let me know when you are ready to discuss the issues at hand. You have made several posts now and none of them have any relevance to the topic.
Have a nice day and try to concentrate on the topic and formulate an intelleigent response.
July 20, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Let me once again apologize for embarrassing you. Apparently, I humiliated you–I did not mean to do that. However, get over it!
Kuddos though for remembering that I am a professor!
July 20, 2011 at 1:30 pm
You have to go a whole lot further than you’ve gone to humilate me. I knew right off you were a professor….book smart…street ignorant.
July 20, 2011 at 1:50 pm |
This is what could have been your first post (unedited and quickly drafted):
Government interferes with our lives way too much. By the time we are adults we all know that smoking, excessive alcohol, and obesity is harmful and could kill us. There is a reason they are called vices.
But why should the government be allowed to prevent us from possibly knowingly harming and/or killing ourselves? And why does government pick and choose which vice they will interfere with and others they won’t touch?
Today in NYC an obese alcoholic smoker can walk into a bar that has a giant sign that says “obese alcoholic smokers are welcome here”, hand over his keys to his car, and be served drinks and chicken wings, cheese sticks and other fatty food, but if he wants to smoke, he has to exit the bar. This is even the case where a person owns two bars next to each other and states that if you like smoke, go to Bar A; if you hate smoke, go to Bar B. Why is there a problem with that?
Why not let the owner decide whether there should be smoking in their bar. If non-smokers don’t want smoke, they will go to another bar who doesn’t allow smoking. The market will decide. My guess is both will thrive.
In NYC, if you hate meat or the thought of someone killing an animal, there are vegan restaurants for you. If an owner of an establishment had a giant picture of his beloved dog licking his private parts and the patrons find that disgusting, the market would force the picture to come down or the business to shut down OR enough people would not find that offensive and would continue to patronize the establishment. The market decides.
Why can an obese person decide to go to an fancy restaurant and eat a 4000 calory meal? Because it is choice; the person’s and not the government’s.
There are those who argue that the smoking restrictions in establishments is to protect the workers. However, it is the workers who decide to work there. If a person is opposed to nudity, they shouldn’t work in a strip club as a bartender or bouncer. If a person finds transvestites to be committing a sin, they should not work in a bar where all the waitstaff are transvestites. I have never worked as a mover because I can’t take the strain on my body. I have never been a firefighter because I am not brave enough. If I don’t want to do it or can’t do it, I will find employment elsewhere.
Why should we become a nanny-state?
July 20, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
This is what could have been your first post (unedited and quickly drafted):
Government interferes with our lives way too much. By the time we are adults we all know that smoking, excessive alcohol, and obesity is harmful and could kill us. There is a reason they are called vices.
But why should the government be allowed to prevent us from possibly knowingly harming and/or killing ourselves? And why does government pick and choose which vice they will interfere with and others they won’t touch?
Today in NYC an obese alcoholic smoker can walk into a bar that has a giant sign that says “obese alcoholic smokers are welcome here”, hand over his keys to his car, and be served drinks and chicken wings, cheese sticks and other fatty food, but if he wants to smoke, he has to exit the bar. This is even the case where a person owns two bars next to each other and states that if you like smoke, go to Bar A; if you hate smoke, go to Bar B. Why is there a problem with that?
Why not let the owner decide whether there should be smoking in their bar. If non-smokers don’t want smoke, they will go to another bar who doesn’t allow smoking. The market will decide. My guess is both will thrive.
In NYC, if you hate meat or the thought of someone killing an animal, there are vegan restaurants for you. If an owner of an establishment had a giant picture of his beloved dog licking his private parts and the patrons find that disgusting, the market would force the picture to come down or the business to shut down OR enough people would not find that offensive and would continue to patronize the establishment. The market decides.
Why can an obese person decide to go to an fancy restaurant and eat a 4000 calory meal? Because it is choice; the person’s and not the government’s.
There are those who argue that the smoking restrictions in establishments is to protect the workers. However, it is the workers who decide to work there. If a person is opposed to nudity, they shouldn’t work in a strip club as a bartender or bouncer. If a person finds transvestites to be committing a sin, they should not work in a bar where all the waitstaff are transvestites. I have never worked as a mover because I can’t take the strain on my body. I have never been a firefighter because I am not brave enough. If I don’t want to do it or can’t do it, I will find employment elsewhere.
Why should we become a nanny-state?
July 20, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
Finally something of substance. Thank you.
July 22, 2011 at 9:19 am |
What really twists me is that state legislators, who are breaking laws in greater and greater numbers with kickbacks from contractors, tampering with absentee ballots, extra-marital affairs, improperly favoring the hiring of companies who donate heavily to their campaigns and other campaign finance irregularities, refuse to serious enact new and stronger ethic reforms to govern their legislative bodies and activities. A bit of a double standard don’t you think?
July 22, 2011 at 12:05 pm |
Glad you edited your piece. Sorry this is just a dialogue between you and me. WHere are the same sex people–lively conversation there!
I don’t like using arguments based on the founding of our country because we are in such a different world than they were. Rights, privileges and immunities only applied to white males (and in some cases they had to be land owners). The founding fathers had no problem violating the Bill of Rights when it hurt them. Science was certainly not where it is today. When we talk about cigarettes, there was no knowledge of the powerful and addictive drug of nicotine. Opium and marijuana were not illegal.
The science today shows us the harm that cigarettes can do and the harm that second hand smoke can do (that is why they ban smoking on planes–it was hurting the pilots).
Economists has shown the financial impact of cigarettes in terms of those addicted requiring frequent breaks in the workplace and are less healthy than other workers. They also have shown the economic impact on our health care system.
Government regulates the use of opium (as well as almost every other drug) and marijuana–why not the use of cigarettes?
If you believe that all drug use should be regulated, then how could you exclude cigarettes? If tobacco was first discovered today, I truly doubt it would be allowed to be legal today.
If you believe that drug use and possession should not be regulated, then come out and say that you believe that opium, heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, etc should be decriminalized.
Or do you believe in selective regulation? They are all harmful. However, we see today that government picks and chooses (based on lobbies–your favorite) which bad drug is allowed and which isn’t.
So, which camp do you fall in?