It’s as if we’ve been raised as Americans to believe that when things get controversial, we’ve always got an argument. As children we know to say, ‘I can do what I want, because it’s a free country.” Even then, we’re aware of our “rights” whether or not we are knowledgeable of them.
As we grow older, and become knowledgeable enough to understand how we acquire our rights, though the U.S. Constitution, it seems that many of us still use this form of self-serving logic. Whether we be for or against abortion, gun control or death by firing squad it seems that everyone has the their own interpretation of the Constitution. And in every case, it’s on OUR side. The case for smoking rights is no exception.
In my last entry, I mentioned the ODH hearing to be held in Columbus that would discuss future penalties of the Ohio smoking ban. These penalties, to be enacted statewide in the next few weeks, are at the heart of the controversy for those who have fought the ban. At last Tuesday’s hearing, opposition to the ban became so violent that two representatives of American Cancer Society were actually advised to leave the hearing early for their own protection from the violent crowd. And what were these protesters arguing so adamantly? What was their case? Smoker’s rights. Here is an excerpt from Wednesday's article in the Columbus Dispatch that covered the hearing:
This first argument, that a smoking ban usurps the property rights of business owners is just one example of using the Constitution as support for smoker’s rights. As for comparing state of Ohio’s infringement of smoker’s rights to some kind of Socialist regime or Hitler’s Nazi Germany, well, even in context that just seems a bit excessive...
While it is true that a smoking ban makes a stigma on smoking almost inevitable, and many smokers and businesses will face major inconvenience and/or financial difficulty, the point is, there is nothing clearly stated in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees a smoker rights in the first place. In fact, short of the claim by Native Americans that smokefree laws interfere with religious practices and freedoms (which is an exception being looked into by Ohio and other state governments), there are no strong legal arguments for smokers rights.
Although we know the liberties of the United States were created to protect us, oftentimes we still can’t help but think of the “us” as it pertains to the specific “me” rather than the collective “we”. It is easy to view smoking with the childhood argument of, “It’s a free country.” But for smokers, it seems as if the Constitution is not on our side.
As we grow older, and become knowledgeable enough to understand how we acquire our rights, though the U.S. Constitution, it seems that many of us still use this form of self-serving logic. Whether we be for or against abortion, gun control or death by firing squad it seems that everyone has the their own interpretation of the Constitution. And in every case, it’s on OUR side. The case for smoking rights is no exception.
In my last entry, I mentioned the ODH hearing to be held in Columbus that would discuss future penalties of the Ohio smoking ban. These penalties, to be enacted statewide in the next few weeks, are at the heart of the controversy for those who have fought the ban. At last Tuesday’s hearing, opposition to the ban became so violent that two representatives of American Cancer Society were actually advised to leave the hearing early for their own protection from the violent crowd. And what were these protesters arguing so adamantly? What was their case? Smoker’s rights. Here is an excerpt from Wednesday's article in the Columbus Dispatch that covered the hearing:
“The president of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association told the
health department that depriving patrons of the right to smoke in bars
ultimately would deprive bar owners of their property by forcing them out of
business, which would usurp their property rights.
And a parade of other business owners and smokers said the ban tramples on basic freedoms. Three mentioned communism and socialism, and one invoked the name of Adolf Hitler.”
This first argument, that a smoking ban usurps the property rights of business owners is just one example of using the Constitution as support for smoker’s rights. As for comparing state of Ohio’s infringement of smoker’s rights to some kind of Socialist regime or Hitler’s Nazi Germany, well, even in context that just seems a bit excessive...
While it is true that a smoking ban makes a stigma on smoking almost inevitable, and many smokers and businesses will face major inconvenience and/or financial difficulty, the point is, there is nothing clearly stated in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees a smoker rights in the first place. In fact, short of the claim by Native Americans that smokefree laws interfere with religious practices and freedoms (which is an exception being looked into by Ohio and other state governments), there are no strong legal arguments for smokers rights.Although we know the liberties of the United States were created to protect us, oftentimes we still can’t help but think of the “us” as it pertains to the specific “me” rather than the collective “we”. It is easy to view smoking with the childhood argument of, “It’s a free country.” But for smokers, it seems as if the Constitution is not on our side.
2 comments:
LauraG,
Did you catch the part where the ACS folks claim to have been threatened and were advised by the State Highway Patrol to leave early?
Turns out they weren't advised by the OSHP to leave early, and they seem to keep changing their story... today's Dispatch has them being advised by the Assistant Atty General, who claims to have said something to the OSHP officers, but the officers have no recollection of any such threat or notification.
And now Sabetta claims to have had a threatening email, even though she never reported it to any law enforcement officer.
All this is an apparent attempt to portray the opponents of the smoking ban as raging and violent fringe-element kooks.
That time line is really interesting. I remember when I was little, the big smoking issue was the whole "Joe Camel" controversy over whether or not Camel cigs were targetting kids.
Otherwise, it sounds like that meeting got pretty heated. I always think it's interesting and usually a little overdramatic when people play the Hilter card.
I'm really interested to hear how the Constitution will play into this issue. Do you think it is an issue that business owners could take all the way to the supreme court?
Post a Comment