2008 Woodie Awards
The Md. smoking ban infringes on individual and property rights
Smoking or non-smoking? The Maryland smoking ban
Issue date: 1/31/08
Tomorrow will mark a sad day for democracy in the state of Maryland. On May 17, 2007, Gov. Martin O'Malley signed into law a statewide ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and private clubs.
For some, a ban on smoking indoors may sound good. And certainly something must be done to essentially an epidemic that is damaging our citizens. Despite this, Feb. 1 marks a dark moment for the relationship between the state and individual.
It is very true that millions of individuals in our nation are suffering from an addiction to smoking. Smoking is a horrible thing and condemns so many to a slow painful death to end a shortened life. Today, after the lawsuits and studies, we all know the detrimental effects of smoking and what it does to the body.
This ban on smoking indoors, however, infringes on a number of basic rights that should not be ignored when dealing with smokers. The first of which is minority rights. A minority is not necessarily a group of people determined by their race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. A minority, in a democracy, could best be defined as a group of people of different, or even conflicting, character and interests from the majority. Children are minorities, as are farmers, seniors, union workers, the wealthy, the list goes on. The framers recognized the threat in a democracy of the tyranny of the majority - namely they were concerned with the poor taking from the wealthy - and that is why our Constitution is heavily geared toward the rights of the minority.
In today's world, smokers are a minority, and that's a good thing. I'm not a smoker, but I recognize that because smoking is taboo and it happens to be in fashion to crack down on it, as it should be, that does not give the state the right to do whatever it wishes to individuals who cannot fight back. This includes racking up the prices of cigarettes to exorbitant prices with tax after tax and kicking smokers out of restaurants, bars and even private clubs.
For some, a ban on smoking indoors may sound good. And certainly something must be done to essentially an epidemic that is damaging our citizens. Despite this, Feb. 1 marks a dark moment for the relationship between the state and individual.
It is very true that millions of individuals in our nation are suffering from an addiction to smoking. Smoking is a horrible thing and condemns so many to a slow painful death to end a shortened life. Today, after the lawsuits and studies, we all know the detrimental effects of smoking and what it does to the body.
This ban on smoking indoors, however, infringes on a number of basic rights that should not be ignored when dealing with smokers. The first of which is minority rights. A minority is not necessarily a group of people determined by their race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. A minority, in a democracy, could best be defined as a group of people of different, or even conflicting, character and interests from the majority. Children are minorities, as are farmers, seniors, union workers, the wealthy, the list goes on. The framers recognized the threat in a democracy of the tyranny of the majority - namely they were concerned with the poor taking from the wealthy - and that is why our Constitution is heavily geared toward the rights of the minority.
In today's world, smokers are a minority, and that's a good thing. I'm not a smoker, but I recognize that because smoking is taboo and it happens to be in fashion to crack down on it, as it should be, that does not give the state the right to do whatever it wishes to individuals who cannot fight back. This includes racking up the prices of cigarettes to exorbitant prices with tax after tax and kicking smokers out of restaurants, bars and even private clubs.
Viewing Comments 1 - 9 of 12
Bill Williams
posted 2/01/08 @ 7:30 AM EST
Thank god there's another non-smoker out there who understands what the goverment is doing to us smokers!!!
The smoker's rights issue is more one about censorship and taxatation without representation than anything else. (Continued…)
Sherry
posted 2/01/08 @ 12:35 PM EST
I understand that smokers feel they are being punished with this smoking ban. But smokers can not seem to see the other side of the coin. According to statistics 80% of americans are non smokers. (Continued…)
Vijay
posted 2/05/08 @ 7:58 PM EST
if they created a private room indoors where smokers could smoke (like they have in airports), that was indoors and warm, but separated from the rest of the bar, would that satisfy you? It would in effect shield non-smokers from second hand smoke while providing you with a warm environment to smoke in. (Continued…)
Duke Duyck
posted 2/07/08 @ 7:00 PM EST
How stupid can you get?
I have had a sister and a brother-in-law both dying of second hand smoke induced cancers.
I have talked to people who were dying of smoke induced lung cancer, regretting that they had not stopped many years earlier. (Continued…)
john
posted 3/12/08 @ 8:37 PM EST
oh quit bitching about your tobacco. Look at the drug war problem in our country if you want to see constitutional right infringements
i was laughing as i read this. (Continued…)
Confused
posted 3/13/08 @ 5:32 PM EST
What's the correlation between "tomorrow" being a sad day for democracy in the state of Maryland and the fact that a smoking ban was passed into law May 17, 2007?
Is Feb. (Continued…)
Mike
posted 3/15/08 @ 12:30 PM EST
We don't allow people who are intoxicated to drive cars. Are we infringing on their rights as well?
Nate
posted 3/15/08 @ 3:45 PM EST
Not only does the government tell you what you can and can't put into your bodies, they are also making as many attempts as possible to control the when and where as well. (Continued…)
Camel_NO
posted 3/20/08 @ 3:30 AM EST
You can continue to 'live on the edge' when it comes to matters that involve individual consequence only, such as driving without a seatbelt and hoarding/consuming trans-fat goods to your little heart's content. (Continued…)
Post a Comment