Print
E-mail
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
Lewis Grizzard once fondly described cigarettes as “little rewards” which he would give himself 20 to 40 times a day. He went on to describe how annoying pretentious, holier-than-thou nonsmokers are, and how much he hated them, until he quit smoking and became one himself. I submit to you, gentle reader, on the basis of his Jan. 29 column that Tony Reaves is such a person.
Oh, sure he says he means well. Reaves states in his article that he is concerned for the health and well-being of asthmatics and young children. He wants us all to be considerate, and to refrain from endangering the health of others by subjecting them to second-hand smoke. He just wants what’s best.
But what you don’t know is that he is actually a militant nonsmoker, and probably a Nazi. Oh yes, gentle reader. Don’t be afraid of the truth. He is trying to trample the constitutionally protected, God-given rights of American citizens by not allowing them to smoke in their own cars when children are present for the paltry reason that science has statistically shown a high incidence of lung-related health problems and bacterial infections among young children exposed to second-hand smoke.
Tony Reaves wants to make smoking around young children illegal. Which is all fine and well, except that it’s a massive violation of our rights as American citizens. And I’ll tell you why: because there is no way to legislate standards of decency. Blowing smoke in someone’s face isn’t an act of cruelty or aggression. It’s just rude. You can’t make being rude illegal, because in nearly every case, no two people will agree on what constitutes a rude person. Besides, we have the right to be rude and obnoxious if we want to. Freedom of speech and all that nonsense, and what have you.
Reaves also said that subjecting people to second-hand smoke is a serious health risk, and that it is taking away his right not to be a smoker, which is obviously true. Because, clearly, he has no other option than to walk past the person who is smoking, and deeply inhale the second-hand smoke he objects to breathing. It’s not as though people have the option of not breathing for periods of up to two minutes without serious or even mild effects to their health, nor are they capable of seeing things like people smoking far ahead of them and, by some magical process, devising a path of travel in advance so as to avoid such things. So we must concede this point to Reaves, and suggest that all smokers stand in the middle of a large field when smoking, so as not to unduly inconvenience anyone.
All joking aside, legislating peoples’ ability to smoke in a car when a minor is present is an invasion of privacy, and is pretty nearly impossible to enforce to boot. Besides, I understand that those panes of glass which surround the vehicle do, in fact, slide in various directions to permit the free flow of clean air, thus negating the need for this piece of legislation in the first place.
Any responsible parent will crack the window when they’re lighting up, and if they don’t, I imagine that child services can find a variety of other reasons to arrest them. If you don’t like second-hand smoke, stay away from smokers.
Most smokers are nice people, and if you ask them not to smoke in front of your building or inside your car, they won’t. Passing legislation like this is at least as rude as blowing smoke in your face.
Brian Sylvester smokes eight packs a day out of spite.
Related Posts:- War on terrorism: real security or blowing smoke? (March 4, 2002)
- Idealistic ideas for smoke-free campus should go up in smoke (October 25, 2007)
- Taxes may go up in smoke (January 29, 2007)
- Up in smoke (April 27, 2009)
- Student input goes up in smoke (March 24, 2008)
