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

While it offers little in the way of actual evidence, please allow me to follow my opponent in a brief digression for "historical context." Sally, a young mother in the 1960's, takes her son, Tom, to the doctor. Lately, something has been not quite right with Tom. The child has become increasingly aggressive and restless. He has difficulty sleeping and hasn't had a bowel movement in over a week. Most recently, he has begun to lose some cognitive skills that he had previously mastered, such as speech and walking. The doctor examines Tom, does the blood work, and comes back with the result – Tom is suffering from lead poisoning (1). "But how did this happen, doctor?" Sally inquires. "Why, there's dozens of ways. Lead is found in paint, toys, why, even the water. It's terribly dangerous!" replies the doctor. "Dangerous? That's absurd! People have been using lead for over 6500 years! Why, lead pipes date back to Roman times!" cries Sally. "Glurg!" slobbers Tom, chewing on his cheek. "Well Sally, we know a heck of a lot more than the Romans did about this sort of thing. Maybe it's time we changed these archaic standards…" Like lead pipes and paints, smoking has a long history of reckless use. Like lead, smoking is poisonous and deadly. And, like lead, smoking should be regulated and eliminated from unwanted exposure. My opponent makes the claim that smoking is an unalienable right, yet fails to provide evidence to counter the court decisions that I cited which state clearly that smoking is not a fundamental, let alone unalienable right. However, a few sentences later, my opponent concedes that smoking is not a fundamental right. In fact, he also concedes that the right to life is fundamental and that government ought to protect the right to live if and when it conflicts with less fundamental rights. Such concessions move the pro much closer to the con position. My opponent argues that the historical acceptance of smoking should provide a guarantee of the right to smoke, and while such historic acceptance should weigh in any discussion of limiting or revoking a status quo, in the case of smoking, the harmful effects clearly outweigh any imagined precedent. Ours is a scientific era, an era when presumptions are overturned as facts become available, an era when health is becoming a crucial concern for all citizens. Lead is one example of longstanding practice that was changed because science uncovered legitimate dangers that overwhelmed the benefits of age old practices. Smoking is similarly becoming untenable as more and more research reveals the inherent dangers of smoking not only for smokers but especially those dangers associated with second hand smoke. The pro supports the use of designated smoking sections as a valid response to the dangers of second hand smoke, yet studies have found that "nonsmoking areas are not effective in protecting nonsmokers from ETS in establishments that permit smoking (2)." The pro makes the argument that non-smokers should simply avoid those places that smokers frequent, that by showing up in such places, the non-smoker accepts the consequences of his desire to eat with friends or have a drink. This is like telling African Americans in the 1960's "you're perfectly welcome to sit in the front of the bus as long as you're willing to take the beating that comes with it!" There is no right to assault another person – that is the basic underpinning of our legal system. Yet smokers want to claim for themselves exactly such a right. The hazards associated with second hand smoke cannot be the responsibility of non smokers to avoid. That's like a mad man shooting into a crowd and then claiming that the victims knew better than be in public. Or to put it another way, if you and I happen to be in a cafï¿½ one day, and in the middle of your meal, I reach over and pour a vial of arsenic into your coffee, is it your fault for coming to the cafï¿½? Is arsenic poisoning a normal risk associated with a cup of coffee? Of course not. In fact, if I slip arsenic in your coffee, I'll go to jail, but if I blow it in your face, nothing happens at all. This is absolute nonsense! Any and all of my opponent's claims that place the responsibility for avoiding assault with a deadly weapon on the victim should be dismissed outright for the foolishness that they are. Whether the attacker wields an AK47 or a bottle of poison or a devise that spreads poisons and carcinogens through the air (a cigarette!), the responsibility for the harm falls squarely on the shoulders of the offender, not the victim. In short, smoking is not an absolute or fundamental right. The right to life is fundamental. You cannot say that these need not conflict by making non-smokers responsible for attacks upon their life. Therefore, when conflict exists, the government has the right and responsibility to protect the right to life against the right to smoke. For these reasons, the con should win this debate. (1) http://www.nlm.nih.gov... (2) http://www.pulmonaryreviews.com...