Edward R. Murrow is Rolling in His Grave...

Smoking bans are gaining traction and it’s only a matter of time before every state (or "commonwealth" if, like me, you're in a state clinging to its past) in this country adopts the same statutes that many cities have; smoking will be prohibited in most public places…we’re both nonsmokers, but I know we have differing views on this. I hate to debate another civil liberties issue, but oh well, I watch the same episode of ‘Seinfeld’ 25 times, no harm in discussing something similar with a slightly different twist…

What is your position?

Rob: I don't care for smoking, but I'm totally against laws that curtail it.

Chris: So, to be clear, you disagree with my contention that curbing smoking actually protects the civil liberties of non-smokers?

Rob: Ok, I’m confused. How is not having a smoking ban a violation of civil rights? Or how is having a smoking ban protecting them?

Chris: Let’s make it clear up front…the only thing in the bill of rights that relates to this is the part of the 5th Amendment that says “no man…shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property.” And this is a matter of liberty because your right to kill yourself 25 cents at a time infringes upon my right to not smell like a stomped out cigarette on a NYC subway platform. You can not exercise your "civil rights" without involving me as a participant…For the sake of argument, I’ll even throw out second hand smoke (the "life" issue), I hate the STINK. Who knows, could be the first Supreme Court case to address malodorous behavior...

Rob: You think those old Justices smell good? Old-spice and talcum powder under those hot, unvented robes? It would be an open and shut case. So, it's a civil rights issue, not a health issue?

Chris: It doesn't even need to be a health issue…

Rob: Why not ban obesity because I don't want to be smushed into a subway seat like I’m in the backseat of a car with three other people taking a turn at 80 mph? Or public flatulence? If it's about odor?...Come on. Ground-control to Major Tom...

Chris: No, Bobby, a person's body is their own private domain, they should be free to do with it as they wish…as long as it doesn't involve me. Granted, I don't enjoy inhaling particles from inside other people's asses, but it's a natural function that usually can not be avoided. Anyway, how often do you get a seat on the subway? Sundays and holidays? Otherwise you’re gripping that greasy, sweaty, filthy metal rod right after some guy just finished rubbing his, uh, eye.

Rob: Thank god for Purell….but there's a social cost to everything. Let me say this....I'm for private healthcare....and no smoking ban…there should be a consequence to your action....the burden shouldn't be paid by society…has to be both…or else it's socialism.

Chris: I'm not talking about banning cigarettes...I'm talking about a ban on cigarettes in public places. I'm entirely against the idea of a nanny state…trans fats, keep em, let people decide, but that's personal and solitary, it does not include me as an unwilling participant; I can choose to avoid transfats. On the rare occasions I visit a McDonald’s, say, the whale main-lining fry grease into his veins in no way affects my HDL's or LDL's. Conversely, there is no way to avoid your cigarette smoke.

Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, all of the socially conscious statutes have no place, in my mind...but, unfortunately, there needs to be laws maintaining a certain modicum of courtesy, because people are assholes; i.e. no lawn mower before 8 AM. Suck ‘em down like coca cola, just don't blow your diseased smoke in my hair and face. I pick up my dog's shit and I don't take up two spaces when I park my car, why is it so much to ask for fresh, odorless air?

Rob: What's a public place? Yankee stadium a public place? Moe Green's casino a public place? The Korean massage parlor that I frequent? Where does it end? It’s just more regulation, more government regulation in the pockets of people…I'm against it.

Chris: I understand that, you know I’m a small government guy. Next to my Michael Jackson poster growing up was a Ronald Reagan portrait...I'm saying do away with the nanny laws…but a smoking ban is one that actually protects the civil rights of people who do not wish to reap the collateral damage of the passive-aggressive suicide of others. You can smoke, but keep your tarry death breath out of my pink and elastic lungs, or off my olive-oil skin if we're keeping this entirely superficial.

Rob: What about drunk driving?

Chris: What about drunk driving? What, are we playing Jeopardy? I’ll take “Self-destructive Behavior” for $600, Alex. The answer is: Billy Joel.

There’s a clear distinction between drinking and smoking. Our bodies have a certain tolerance for alcohol. I can drink responsibly (but why would I want to) without disturbing anyone or anything around me.

According to your logic drunk-driving should be legal, but again, it supports my stand that behavior that adversely affects, or causes a nuisance to, your fellow man should not be tolerated. You can not drive drunk without threatening another persons life...period...therefore in order for you to exercise your rights, I am forced to compromise mine. Unacceptable. Similarly, you can not smoke in a confined area without making me smell like shag carpeting on the floor of the Tropicana. You hear me Marlboro Man?

Rob: Smelling of smoke and getting rammed by a 2 ton car isn't the same thing…

Chris: You should know, you’re the Asian driver.

In the vein that they both disturb me, yes they are, and when you compound smoking with the deleterious effects of second-hand smoke, it's a slam dunk.

Rob: Aaahhh haaa…so it IS a health issue. And my people ride bicycles, we didn’t need cars to deliver pizzas like your people.

Chris: Well of course it is, but it need not be to make a convincing case against it...it's an issue of your civil liberties infringing on mine, we don’t need to complicate it with thoughts of bloody sputum, black lungs, emphysema, birth-defects, and all those little heart-warming side-effects.

Rob: It's not civil rights…if you said, health...then ok…because if you start to equate health and civil rights...then you're talking about universal healthcare.

Chris: Look, Hillary, it doesn't need to be that complicated…I believe we should be able to do whatever we like...smoke dope, snort coke, shoot heroin, have consensual sex with animals (how can an animal consent...nevermind)...but once your behavior begins to impact me directly, you are essentially forcing me to compromise my right to something, whether it be clean lungs or clean clothes.

Christ, who am I, Timothy Leary?? Anyway…

You’re big on the analogies, so here’s one…You can eat an apple, but you can't throw the core in my face. You can eat an apple in front of me; the apple core remains; what you choose to do with that core will affect me in different ways. You can dispose of it in the trash (where some bum from the Reagan era will chow down on the core) or you can take aim for my eye and throw it at me. An apple core itself in an inert object and you can control its final destination. Unfortunately cigarettes do not afford that same luxury; you can not stop the equivalent of that core from hitting me in the eye…the smoke goes where it goes.

Rob: You aren't entitled to have clean air, Mr. Nader.

Chris: Not explicitly, but I'm entitled to liberty…You can not force me to participate in your activities, unless you’re the IRS…when you do so, you violate my liberty.

Rob: Those people who live near bus depots....are their civil rights being violated? It's the same thing.

Chris: You call yourself a salesman you sonofabitch? No it's not. At all…This is not about clean air, it's about your freedom of choice robbing me of mine!!

Rob: Well...then the bus company is robbing some one's freedom.

Chris: I would agree IF the bus company moves in after someone has lived there…otherwise you're getting into the wider issue of eminent domain; does the benefit to the greater good outweigh the costs to the few…and if you choose to live by the depot, f you.

Rob: Oh, so it’s ok for poor people who have no choice to have a perpetual carbon-monoxide induced headache?

Chris: Natural selection, broseph…go read my discussion with Jimbino and call me in the morning. Kidding, kidding…If you argue this smoking thing from a health standpoint there's no debate left to be had. Like those hideously obvious notes on UK cigarettes, SMOKING KILLS.

Rob: Well...smoking only increases the utility of the smokers, and maybe the tobacco farmer. On that basis, smoking should probably be banned, because there are a lot of negative externalities, infringement of civil rights not being one of them.

Chris: You're big on utility…is that to compensate for the lack of utility of your…

Rob: Who are you, Kevin Smith? Everything’s a dick joke with you…

Chris: Love those dick and fart jokes, man. Love ‘em. But I digress…when your freedom of choice robs me of mine, it IS civil liberties.

Rob: Ok, last example…I choose go to to Stanford… there's one spot left and we are competing…you don’t get it. Civil rights?

Chris: Only one way that happens…I was ranked higher and scored better on the SATs, but my name ends in a vowel; I knew you checked the Asian demographic box…cheater!

This just highlights the weakness of your argument...you need to keep throwing these hypothetical examples at me because you can't argue against the cigarette ban on its own merits.That's a ridiculous analogy anyway...in any competitive environment there will be winners and losers…we live in a zero-sum world.

Rob: Just like smoking.

‎