current | archives | profile | notes | contact | rings | host




Why I do not back "smokers' rights"

August 21, 2002 ~ 5:15 p.m.

Last night, as the wife and I sat in a central London wine bar, we observed some smokers at a table across the room.

�Just think,� my wife said, looking at them, �how much we�d spend if we both smoked��10 a day.� As I nodded, she proclaimed, in a slightly raised voice. �That�s �300 a month.�

�Bloody hell,� I said. I could get a gym pass that�d allow me to swim every day for the next year for that kind of cash. The fact that people would willingly spend that much money to pollute their lungs�and the air of those around them�astounded me.

�Why don�t they just give up the habit?� I mused. But a look at my glass had me stumbling upon the answer. Let�s face it, if you are willing to spend anything to get your fix, then that is the most telling sign of addiction. The glass of wine in my hand cost me �2.70 ($4.15)�not cheap. This is, of course, downtown, where booze always costs more because it is common practice to soak the tourists. But even in the suburbs, where only the natives go and drink is slightly cheaper, alcohol is still expensive. It should be. As someone who enjoys a daily drink, I recognize the importance of the high price I pay to enjoy a wine or a beer. It acts as a limit on how much I drink (as if the thought of puking isn�t enough to). But it also acts as some sort of limit on other people�s drinking as well. (Prohibition was surely a mistake.) Not only does demand allow such high prices but a social contract that states you can drink as much as you like, it�s perfectly legal, but don�t expect that your habit will come cheap. Sure enough, there are still plenty of dangerously drunk people everywhere, but take a minute to think how much worse the problem would be if a pint of lager cost only �1 ($1.54) instead of �2.50 ($3.85). Lower prices would encourage even more reckless alcohol-fuelled behavior).

Smokers face a similar restriction on their habit. Again, most choose to spend any price, no matter how outrageous, to keep their habit going.

A common conservative question that arises from the ashes of the great smoking debate is that smokers have a habit that causes damage only to themselves. It is unproven, say libertarians, right-wingers, the tobacco lobby and smokers, that second-hand smoke causes direct harm to others. This is in stark contrast to the case against alcohol and drug use, the effects of which regularly inflict harm on innocent people.

No, the case against smokers cannot effectively be made on behalf of public health.

But I have my reasons for supporting high prices on cigarettes, taxing them as high as legally possible. Simply put, smokers much more often than not present themselves as the rudest and most arrogant and hostile people in existence. How many times do they light up on the bus or anywhere else where smoking is prohibited, in fully cognizant denial of the rules, and then tell you to screw off when you object?

Rules are rules�when the sign says �no smoking,� that means YOU CANNOT SMOKE HERE! Taking umbrage, the average smoker invariably brings up the subject of his or her rights. Well, how about my right to be smoke-free in a place I have every right to expect it to be? �It is not proven that second-hand smoke is a health-risk to others,� non-smokers hear if they are lucky enough to come across someone willing to extend a discussion rather than letting his fists fly.

That still doesn�t excuse you from blowing your noxious fumes into my hair or my clothes. I don�t roll around in dog-doo; neither do I wish to wear the parfum of your disgusting habit. Perhaps if you stopped acting like the social pariahs you complain about being treated as, you would not incur the wrath of those who hike the price of your habit by 25 percent and force you out into the elements. Your inconsideration and your contempt for non-smokers and the few law-abiding smokers around you merit a contemptuous response.

For any regular readers of mine who smoke, I hope you won�t see this as a personal attack (I have no idea who among my favorites smoke). And I trust you are considerate smokers who obey the no-smoking rules and ask people sitting next to you on a park bench, �do you mind if I light up?� Kudos if this describes you. But you are the rare exception, not the rule.

I would love to oppose the taxing of cigarettes. I would love to argue in this particular matter that it is an individual�s right to do as he or she pleases as long as no crime is committed against others. As a conservative, this is my natural inclination.

But, as a conservative, I am very fond of law and order. Rules are designed to protect the rights and safety of others, and there is no good reason to flagrantly break them. In my honest opinion, �No Smoking� is to be taken as seriously as �No Turn On Right� or �Warning: Live Wires.�

I will gladly change my stance toward smokers when I start noticing consideration for others and when my rights are taken into account.

Until such a time, however, I will gladly turn a blind eye to the liberal-Left on this issue.

� M.E.M.

[Sign My Guestbook] [View My Guestbook]
Powered by E-Guestbooks Server.

Copyright � 2001-2007 by M.E. Manning. All material is written by me, unless explicitly stated otherwise by use of footnotes or bylines. Do not copy or redistribute without my permission.

Old Cinders | Fresh Fire

AMERICA FOR TRUE AMERICANS!

-