Are the rights of nonsmokers being too highly emphasized? Do smokers have
any rights?" (Hartley, 2005).
Once again I am not a good candidate here to be devil's advocate. I think
the rights of nonsmokers are still far too underemphasized, and I don't
believe that smokers have very many rights. I would be careful not to say
they have no rights, as I do not want to see government taken that far. I
do in fact think that smokers have the right to choose to smoke. That is
their decision. I would support them equally if they chose to hit
themselves in the head with a rock. Again, their choice, and probably
ultimately less painful or damaging than smoking.
My problem is when their addiction affects other unwilling individuals.
Secondhand smoke that reaches any unwilling person is a crime in my mind.
The law would have a problem if a person walked by me on the street, gave me
a nice punch in the face, and kept walking. However, in my mind that is no
worse than a smoker walking by and leaving me in a nice fog of some
carcinogenic chemical compounds.
This problem turns into intense rage when I see a smoker forcing their young
children to inhale these same chemicals, especially when it is a confined
space such as an automobile. That is my mind is actually criminal, and
should lead to charges of child endangerment.
In my mind, smokers have the right to this horrible habit within a sealed,
isolated area of their own ownership. Anything outside of that is
off-limits. Yes, I admit that sounds ridiculous. So is this habit.
Reference:
Hartley, R. (2005). Management mistakes and successes. 8th ed. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc..
This of course brings up one of my favorite sayings that most people don't agree with me on yet. I say if it is acceptable for a smoker to make me inhale their secondhand smoke, I should be able to piss or defacate on them at will. Hey, at least mine will wash off, how the hell do I wash out my lungs?
No comments:
Post a Comment