Your Rights vs My Rights

Shocking to some, you do not have the right to hurt others; unless you're a cop, of course, and then mindless barbarism seems to be part of the job description. But, back to the topic at hand.

In a recent vote that I would have immediately disregarded had this been April 1st, The New York City Council appears to have banned (or will ban?) smoking in certain public places.

The news article quotes one smoker as saying, "We’re outside. We should have freedom to smoke." And without considering one's surroundings, sure, you do. If you're in the middle of a desert, or a forrest, or the ocean, or solely surrounded by other smokers, then go for it. However, the moment your choice of activities harms others, you no longer have that freedom. Nor should you.

Even worse though: the article begins by suggesting that such a smoking ban brings New York closer to the realm of a "Nanny State". Prohibiting people from, say, aimlessly swinging knives around ("because you might harm others") is not nanny state material; nor is a ban that prohibits you from accosting others with an addiction that's held over from your days in middle school when you were trying to fit in.

Let's look at a more fundamental issue though: should there be a law banning smoking? Should there even need to be a law? If you were still clinging to a disgusting, unhealthy habit, but you managed not to afflict others, would law makers feel any compulsion to limit your rights? Said another way: if you exhibited self control, would it be necessary for this Council to tell you how to behave?

Go smoke. Just don't do it around people who care to live long enough to see their grandkids.