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

I hope the weather was nice. Walter Raleigh: Indeed it was, Your Majesty. QEI: So did you bring me some souvenirs back then, Walter? WR: Yes indeed, Your Majesty. Please allow me to present you with what the natives of America call a "potato". QEI: What? How dare you! Fancy giving me some ghastly, misshapen vegetable all covered in mud as a gift. Guards, have this man beheaded at once! WR: No, no, wait Your Majesty, I've brought you something else, look: this is what the natives call a "tomato". QEI: Oh, how kind of you Walter, you went all the way to America and brought me back some sort of red plum thing – how very thoughtful of you, are you sure your Queen is worthy of this overwhelming generosity? Verily, I'm warning you Walter, this better taste nice and sweet or your head's on the block. WR: Erm, actually Ma'am, on reflection, perhaps it would be better if you sampled my final offering first. This is what the natives call "tobacco". QEI: Art thou having a laugh at your Queen's expense, Walter? You go to America and all you bring me back is a horrid turnip thingy, a beastly-looking plum and some dried-out leaves. Right, it's the chopping block for you, you seagoing skinflint… WR: Ah, just a moment Your Majesty, wait: what you do is roll the leaves up in paper, light one end, put the other end in your mouth and inhale, just like this – see? Have a go yourself Ma'am. QEI: What nonsense, but I'm bored so I'll give it a try… Wow! You dancer, Walter, this is seriously good sh! t. Guard! Hand me your sword - kneel down there, Walter. QEI: I hereby dub thee "Sir" Walter Raleigh. Arise Sir Walter. And since that day smoking became popular throughout Europe and, later, with settlers in the New World and beyond and now the world's 2 billion smokers consume 5,407 trillion cigarettes each year – smoking is not the pastime of an inconsequential few and, in most societies and for most its history, smoking has been socially acceptable. . http://www.fas.usda.gov... Now, to directly address my opponent's argument: I'm not personally convinced that Ayn Rand is the supreme and indisputable authority on morals and ethics but let's say she was right when she stated: "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. " If this is the case, then the anti-smoking lobby cannot legitimately violate the unalienable right of their fellow citizens to smoke - a right that smokers have held since tobacco was first introduced into the free world. Had smoking always been illegal and not widely practiced, my opponent would have had a valid argument when he stated that people have "the right to be protected from things that diminish or harm the citizen's life or health" and that it would be an infringement of this right if pro-smoking groups were successful in having smoking tobacco de-criminalised and legally obliged all public places to permit smoking on their premises. But of course, that isn't the case, so his argument is invalid. But even if we do accept that smoking is not a fundamental right while the right to life is, and that governments have the duty to protect the latter at the expense of the former, there is no reason, in the case of smoking, why these rights should come into conflict. The status quo has always been that if an individual objected to smoking, he or she would avoid smoky environments. For example, he or she may have chosen to sit in the non-smoking carriage on trains or avoid visiting bars, nightclubs and restaurants. Another excuse for banning smoking in bars that anti-smoking fascists trot out is that a non-smoking policy protects the staff from inhaling second-hand smoke. But this argument simply doesn't hold water: the staff weren't forced to apply for jobs there – and they wouldn't have if they objected to smoking. Just like a vegan wouldn't apply for a job in an abattoir. Or a devout Muslim wouldn't apply for a job as a wine critic. Or a militant feminist wouldn't apply for a job as a jizz-mopper in a peep show. Or a hay fever sufferer wouldn't apply for a job as a gardener. Or a Jew wouldn't apply for a job as a tax inspector in Manhattan's Lower East Side. Or someone with an allergy to feathers wouldn't apply for a job as Elton John's fluffer. But now the law in many places obliges all the customers to refrain from smoking just for the benefit of the staff - crazy, crazy inverted logic! Of course, certain places where young children may be present have always had no-smoking policies, for example: schools; hospitals; churches; libraries; toy shops and Catholic priests' bedrooms, and people have always accepted that. But what people cannot and should not accept is that an individual's right to engage in what has always been a perfectly legal activity is denied them - just because some ultra-conservative anti-smoking fascists disapprove of that activity. Vote Pro. Thank you.