Freedom-loving citizens should defend civil liberties by confronting anti-smoking fascists

Ayn Rand, one of the America's most aggressive advocates of individualism and individual rights writes: "Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another. For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do." The Con will demonstrate the following 3 contentions: 1) The right to smoke is not a fundamental human right; 2) The right to life is a fundamental human right; and 3) When in conflict, government must defend a fundamental right against a non-fundamental right. Contention 1: The right to smoke is not a fundamental human right. In the United States, US District Court D. Maryland decided in Brashear v. Simms: "that the act of smoking is entitled to only a minimal level of protection under the Equal Protection Clause, as it is obviously not a fundamental right (1)." And in the UK, the Queen's Bench Divisional Court in the cases of Regina (G) v Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust Regina (N) v Secretary of State for Health Regina (B) v Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust decided: "Preventing a person smoking did not generally involve such adverse effect upon his physical or moral integrity as would amount to an interference with the right to respect for private or home life…There was not an absolute right…to smoke wherever one was living (2)." The courts exist to defend and define the limits of the law, and in these cases they clearly demonstrate that the right to smoke is not a fundamental human right. Contention 2: The right to life is a fundamental human right. The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights, being essential for the enjoyment of all other rights, including the right to smoke. The American Declaration of Independence, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and similar documents firmly establish the right to life as absolute and inviolable. Further, the right to life means the right not to be deprived of one's life arbitrarily, i.e. without due process of law. However, when smokers expose others to the toxic effects of their habit, they are depriving their fellow human beings of life and health without due process. The Pro glosses casually over the well known health hazards associated with smoking, but in fact this is the crux of the issue. According to the Mayo Clinic: "Breathing secondhand smoke for a short time can irritate your lungs and reduce the amount of oxygen in your blood. Prolonged or repeated exposure to secondhand smoke is all the more dangerous. And it isn't just the smoke that's a concern. The residue that clings to a smoker's hair and clothing, as well as cushions, carpeting and other goods … also can pose risks, especially for children (3). The known health problems that environmental tobacco smoke causes or contributes to include lung disease, heart disease, cancer, low birth weight, SIDS, and infections in children(3). Contention 3: When in conflict, government must defend a fundamental right against a non-fundamental right. Clearly, whatever rights smokers may have must be limited by the dangers posed to both smokers and their innocent victims. Renowned Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once noted: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." When the exercise of a given right causes harm to others, the government has not only the authority but in fact the duty to curtail that right to protect the innocent bystanders. The right to free speech does not include the right to incite riot, for example. According to the Declaration of Independence, the purpose of government is to secure the inalienable rights of men, including the right to life. It is the duty of government to do everything in its power to ensure that every citizen is allowed to enjoy the right to live, which includes the right to be protected from things that diminish or harm the citizen's life or health. Tobacco smoke poses a direct threat to the lives of both smokers and non-smokers, and it is therefore the duty of governments to protect their citizens from tobacco smoke. The right to smoke extends only to situations in which no other individual's right to life is threatened. And, given the lingering hazardous effects of environmental tobacco smoke, this may reasonably include bans or restrictions on smoking in public areas, smoking indoors, smoking in rental properties, and any other restriction that is deemed necessary to protect the non-smokers' right to life. The right to bear arms does not include the right to go on shooting sprees, yet every time a smoker lights up, they release an assault of toxic chemicals that carry out lethal attacks on innocent bystanders even hours after they've left the area. The right to smoke can only be granted so long as the effects of the smoke do not interfere with other's right to life and health. Turning now to the arguments set forth by the Pro: The Pro sets up his case based on the Nazi opposition to smoking. We are supposed to be appalled because the Nazis also committed genocide. However, there is no link between anti-smoking policies and genocide. The Nazis also implemented physical education programs for their youth. Does this mean we are marching in lockstep with the SS because we have mandatory physical education? No, it means that we see the benefit in having healthy children. The Nazis wanted strong healthy citizens. Therefore, anyone who wants strong, healthy citizens must be preparing for another world war. It doesn't follow. There are plenty of reasons to want a strong and healthy citizenry – they are happier, more productive, less expensive, etc. This argument is fallacious, and should be disregarded in its totality. The Pro next makes the appeal that "they won't stop with smoking." This is a slippery slope fallacy. It suggests that restrictions on smoking will lead inevitably to further restrictions on other liberties. But it is reasonable to conclude that the anti-smoking campaign is an end in itself, a matter of public health, not morality. More important is how the courts have supported smoking controls. The courts have consistently ruled that the government, "…in view of the well-known harmful effects of secondhand smoke, has a legitimate interest in protecting the health of non-smokers…(1)." The right to smoke is not as fundamental as the right to life, so when these conflict, society must protect the more fundamental right to life. The Pro mentions dry counties where the sale of alcohol is prohibited, but neglects to mention that these laws have been on the books for decades, long before smoking became an issue. The Pro argues that e-cigarettes are not harmful to anyone, yet the FDA has issued warnings that these devices have been found to emit cancer causing agents and other harmful pollutants (4). The conclusion is simple. If the right to smoke is more fundamental than the right to live, then the Pro should win this debate. If the right to live is even slightly more important than the right to inhale poisonous gas, then the win should go to the Con. (1) http://www.palaborandemploymentblog.com... (2) http://business.timesonline.co.uk... (3) http://www.mayoclinic.com... (4) http://www.webmd.com...