Politics: I'm not a Fan of Cancer

If I was the Surgeon General my warnings would be more direct. Warning:

1. Your breath and clothes are going to smell horrible.
2. I think your teeth are turning yellow already.
3. You will never get laid (note warning 2 and 3).
4. Hundreds of children die from second-hand smoke you serial killer!
5. Stop. Girls will know that you have a small penis. (for men)
6. Look. You are fat. (for women)

Now maybe I’m insensitive but I can’t stand those little buggers. They give people cancer! It says it right on the box and people still wildly puff away. Addicted? Maybe. Naïve? Possibly. Loathed? Absolutely.

Here is my take. Girls who smoke are immediately unattractive. Guys who smoke are insecure. And those who smoke near me are inconsiderate. It is well documented that second-hand smoke causes nearly 6,000 deaths a year. It is an annoyance to breathe in while eating, walking, sitting, sleeping, reading, watching, and all other possible verbs while living.

But even so, do I have the right to tell smokers when and where they can smoke? In doing so, am I hypocritically imposing my will on the minority? Well let’s see.

To quote a comment,

As of Dec. 8th the state of Washington will no longer permit smoking in public places or even within 20 feet of the entrances to public spaces! This is to go into effect due to Tuesday'svoting where the measure to ban smoking was, from a "political" standpoint, overwhelmingly (~70%)passed.

Firstly, I don’t consider this a partisan issue. If anything, Washington being a liberal state makes the ban even more surprising. Usually, if there is even a question of right-infringement, a liberal state usually protects rather than denies. T he opposite is true for conservative states (generally).

Moreover, the question deals with the Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The state has to, under rational basis; give ample evidence to prove the law serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly defined. And furthermore, that it isn’t unconstitutional. At least in modern discussion, a law is only considered unconstitutional if it restricts a fundamental right: one which is “implicit in ordered liberty.”

Narrowly defined? Well I don’t know (revel in that, it doesn’t happen often). I am ignorant to the exact law and to the realm of possible policies to protect non-smokers.

Is there a compelling state interest? Yes, to not have smoke blown in my face if I don’t want it. Or more maturely, to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke related illnesses (specifically children). Note: this is where I am not a hypocrite (gay marriage) because in this case there is a more legitimate interest than, “I don’t like it.”

Is the right to smoking, “implicit in ordered liberty?” Of course not. A person’s rights end where another’s begin, right? There is a guaranteed freedom to give yourself cancer (i.e. tanning), but none to give others the same. Plus, a smoking ban does not discriminate.

I'm all about liberty, but I'm just not a fan of Cancer, and I shouldn't have to be.