But for me is a filthy vice and rights are not applied here. What do you think? [And careful not to call me a "anti-smoker Naz"i: I hate Nazis as racists, warmonger and bigots]
2007-07-24 10:31:04 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Both. Citizens have the right to harm themselves if they are of age and sound mental capacity.
However it is not a right for a smoker to be able to smoke wherever they want (and expose others to toxins) because that is infringing on others who wish not to smoke, and an equally valid right.
I think to describe it as a vice is too light of a term.
2007-07-24 10:46:11 · answer #1 · answered by sbcalif 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A "right" is something protected by law. While people talk glibly about "natural rights" that phrase has no legal meaning.
Smoking is not generally an activity protected by law, even if it is not always prohibited by law. So it is not a right.
Whether it is a vice is a subjective assessment.
2007-07-24 17:39:22 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's both a right and a vice.
Since smoking is not illeagal, it's a right. It's also an unhealthy vice.
2007-07-24 17:35:51 · answer #3 · answered by Jeremy A 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's both. It doesn't affect me so what should I care if someone wants to smoke? Just don't blow it in my face.
2007-07-24 17:38:12 · answer #4 · answered by The Curmudgeon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋