Smoking Ban

Yesterday the state wide smoking ban went into effect. No more smoking in bars and restaurants. I'm all in favor of the ban. No more coming home from the bars, or a restaurant smelling like an ashtray. Of course, the smokers are all up in arms.

The Denver Post ran an article this morning reporting that smokers are less than thrilled, and claim the law encroaches upon their right to smoke. It would seem, however, this argument assumes what has to be proven. Is smoking a right?

The distinguishing characteristic of a right is that it regulates the conduct of others in relation to that right. It imposes a duty onto others. Rights and duties. Typically, one doesn't exist without the other. We have a right to life. That means that others have a duty not to kill you. You have a right to the property you legally possess. Others have a duty to not dispossess you of that property. One choosing to smoke doesn't impose a duty onto others. So it wouldn't seem that smoking is a right. Sure there's the assertion, more broadly, that it's an encroachment on the individual right to choose. But unmitigated egoistic hedonism is generally frowned upon. So we have a duty to make choices that pose no detriment,or risk of harm, to others. It's a brute fact that smoking poses a risk of harm not only to the smoker, but, also, to others in proximity of the smoker. So the argument against the smoking ban is sophistical at best, farcical at worst. At least as it applies to the individual right to choose. What's more, smokers can still choose to smoke, they just have to meet their duty to not harm others.

Now, I have to find my car keys. Samantha and I are going out to eat. Celebrating that we can go out to dinner without leaving the restaurant smelling like eau de Marlboro.