'Rights:' A word often misused by Americans
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2008
The state of Iowa has banned smoking in most public places as of July 1.
The state of Iowa has banned smoking in most public places as of July 1.
Complaints from smokers fall into two categories: the government is interfering with my right to smoke and this is the first step down the slippery slope to a totalitarian government interfering with all personal choices.
We have a lot of rights in this country, far more than other countries in the world. But we have far fewer than what people claim. It seems like every time somebody wants to do something, they claim a "right" to do it. Every time someone has a grievance they claim their "rights" have been violated.
A quick Google and you will find a donor bill of rights, P2P bill of rights, academic bill of rights, digital consumer bill of rights, mental health patient bill of rights, taxicab riders bill of rights, parents bill of rights, wives bill of rights, patients bill of rights and many more including smokers.
The word "rights" gets used too often to mean things it shouldn't mean. There is the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, there are basic human rights, like being able to find housing and jobs without being discriminated against and that's about it.
Today we speak of animals having rights. Laws against animal cruelty are in place because it's twisted, irresponsible behavior that is destructive to property and society, not because the animal's civil rights are violated.
So, smokers, your rights to smoke aren't being violated. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to smoke. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to a smoke-free environment. But since we have a situation my old journalism professor John Erickson described as "legitimate rights in conflict," the government had to step in and pick one.
As the old saying goes: "Your right to swing your arms ends at my nose." You have the right to bear arms but you don't have the right to open up on your backyard rabbits with a machine gun (however much you'd like to.) You have the right to pursue your religious beliefs, but you can't demand government impose your religion on everyone else. There was no problem with people smoking as long as they didn't exhale. If they want to inhale carcinogens, let them, but if I choose not to, I shouldn't have to.
As for the slippery slope argument, I will paraphrase late columnist Molly Ivins: That's not tyranny, that's a pain in the butt.
Government may not have the power to protect people from themselves but it's always had the power to protect everyone else from those people. Bar owners say they government is interfering with their "right" to run their business. Try opening the "Underage Hooker Meth Lab Bar and Grill" and see what happens? Nobody would allow market conditions to dictate something like that.
Whether smoking rises to the public danger of the aforementioned establishment is the question government, as our representative, decides. That's where the argument is, not in the arena of rights.
If you want to live in a society, there will be rules, there will be laws. They may be bad laws, flawed laws (like the smoking ban), or good laws. But government has the power to make them. If it didn't, we would have chaos, not America.
Journal copy editor Dave Yoder can be reached at 293-4246 or at daveyoder@siouxcityjournal.com.
The state of Iowa has banned smoking in most public places as of July 1.
Complaints from smokers fall into two categories: the government is interfering with my right to smoke and this is the first step down the slippery slope to a totalitarian government interfering with all personal choices.
We have a lot of rights in this country, far more than other countries in the world. But we have far fewer than what people claim. It seems like every time somebody wants to do something, they claim a "right" to do it. Every time someone has a grievance they claim their "rights" have been violated.
A quick Google and you will find a donor bill of rights, P2P bill of rights, academic bill of rights, digital consumer bill of rights, mental health patient bill of rights, taxicab riders bill of rights, parents bill of rights, wives bill of rights, patients bill of rights and many more including smokers.
The word "rights" gets used too often to mean things it shouldn't mean. There is the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, there are basic human rights, like being able to find housing and jobs without being discriminated against and that's about it.
Today we speak of animals having rights. Laws against animal cruelty are in place because it's twisted, irresponsible behavior that is destructive to property and society, not because the animal's civil rights are violated.
So, smokers, your rights to smoke aren't being violated. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to smoke. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to a smoke-free environment. But since we have a situation my old journalism professor John Erickson described as "legitimate rights in conflict," the government had to step in and pick one.
As the old saying goes: "Your right to swing your arms ends at my nose." You have the right to bear arms but you don't have the right to open up on your backyard rabbits with a machine gun (however much you'd like to.) You have the right to pursue your religious beliefs, but you can't demand government impose your religion on everyone else. There was no problem with people smoking as long as they didn't exhale. If they want to inhale carcinogens, let them, but if I choose not to, I shouldn't have to.
As for the slippery slope argument, I will paraphrase late columnist Molly Ivins: That's not tyranny, that's a pain in the butt.
Government may not have the power to protect people from themselves but it's always had the power to protect everyone else from those people. Bar owners say they government is interfering with their "right" to run their business. Try opening the "Underage Hooker Meth Lab Bar and Grill" and see what happens? Nobody would allow market conditions to dictate something like that.
Whether smoking rises to the public danger of the aforementioned establishment is the question government, as our representative, decides. That's where the argument is, not in the arena of rights.
If you want to live in a society, there will be rules, there will be laws. They may be bad laws, flawed laws (like the smoking ban), or good laws. But government has the power to make them. If it didn't, we would have chaos, not America.
Journal copy editor Dave Yoder can be reached at 293-4246 or at daveyoder@siouxcityjournal.com.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 1 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
Joyce Harris wrote on May 8, 2008 6:01 PM: