Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ariel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!tas
From: tas@ariel.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: "Natural rights" and smoking
Message-ID: <425@ariel.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Aug-83 14:07:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: ariel.425
Posted: Tue Aug 16 14:07:43 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Aug-83 05:52:00 EDT
Organization: ABI - ED&D, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 52

The issue of passive versus active rights was recently brought up
in the Great Smoke Debate.  This is an important subject which hasn't
really been discussed all that much.  Do my desires not to have certain
substances in my environment override someone else's desires to inject
those substances?  If I'm in the presence of a burning cigarette/pipe/cigar,
I feel uncomfortable.  If a nicotine addict is deprived of the right to
smoke for a significant time, he or she feels uncomfortable.  We can try to
favor the one who would feel *most* uncomfortable, which would not be
simple (would depend on ventilation and the physical characteristics
of the parties involved, etc).  We could compromise (limit smoking to
certain areas, or have alternating smoking/no smoking times) so that
each party feels some discomfort some of the time.  And so on.

One thing that strikes me is that people are *born* with a distaste
for smoke (I think), whereas smoking is a *learned* (and chosen) pleasure.
In a clash, I would tend to favor the native desires of the nonsmoker.
Of course, this isn't completely clean: one could perhaps argue that
once a body has been smoking for ten years, the craving for tobacco is
as natural for him as is the craving for food in a normal person.  Is one
responsible now for a decision he made ten years ago?  I don't know
absolutely, but society seems to say yes.  Contracts are considered
binding, after all.  So it may be argued that the smoker took upon
himself the responsibility of dealing with the occasional discomfort
caused by smoking restrictions when he decided to smoke.

An offshoot of this is that I can argue against smoking, but not
against obscenity.  Here I'm assuming that objection to obscenity
is a learned discomfort, which is not as valid as an unlearned
discomfort such as smoke irritation.  As far as flatulence is concerned,
well, the discomfort of having gas is a natural discomfort.  I don't
know about distaste for the smell of gas (I do maintain that we have
been convinced by TV commercials et al to greatly limit the range of
smells that we consider acceptable for our noses).

I haven't said anything about the percentage of the population that
smokes.  Should the majority always have the final say?  If I derive a
natural pleasure from walking through a meadow, and Society decides to
build a highway through the meadow, do my rights to a natural pleasure
override Society's right to an "unnatural" pleasure?  If I don't want
people pointing bombs at me, but Society deems that those bombs are in
my best interest, do I have the right to veto Society?  Can we demand
that our culture be "upward compatible" so that people who don't want
to change with the latest advances in technology or whatever don't
have to?  I'd like to say yes, but at this point I don't know how to
implement such a utopia.  (Maybe we can implant electrodes into
everyone's brain and stimulate them so that each person sees the world
as he wants to :-)).  I'm uneasy about the prospect of too many laws,
and I don't know if blowing smoke in my face should be the equivalent
of assault, but when there is a dispute over the air, it seems to me
that the resolution should favor the non-smoker.

Tom Skrobala ariel!tas