KellanStec

Yesterday, the supreme court overturned an earlier decision to award a widow of a smoking man $79.5 million dollars in damages. The decision was overturned because of a restriction placed on such awards in 2003. I don’t really care about that. I’d like to declare this a victory for personal freedom. Also, it serves to remind people in the future that someone else should never be held responsible for your personal decisions.

I am wondering how this decision was ever reached in the first place. Mayola Williams apparently pressed charges in 1997 following her 40 year old husband’s death from lung cancer. Sometime in his 40-year life, he made a personal decision to begin smoking, and this ultimately killed him. Who was at fault? It seems to me that it would be Mr. Williams, but apparently the court saw differently.

I don’t know how many of you have seen the movie Thank You for Smoking, but for those who haven’t: please do. It’s about the life of a public relations spokesman for a big tobacco company. The film makes some very compelling points. Tobacco companies are collectively despised for committing mass murder against smokers, but think about it: why would a company want its customers to die? They make more money by keeping their customers alive and smoking.

But this isn’t about the tobacco companies. This is about people. It is my opinion that in the free society we should all strive for, people have the right to put whatever they want into their own bodies as long as they do not endanger the well-being of others. Why should anyone have the right to tell you otherwise? I am free to take ibuprofen to relieve a headache whenever I wish. Taking tobacco to relieve stress should be no different. A drug is a drug.

I suppose it could be said that when I take ibuprofen, it causes not the mildest inconvenience to others, while smoking does. I am talking, of course, about second hand smoke. Second hand smoke is definitely an inconvenience. I don’t care for the smell, and it tends to make the air hard to breathe when I am inside a bar. I’m pretty skeptical of the potential health risks involved in inhaling second hand smoke, but the smoke is still an annoyance. But, I don’t find it necessary to bitch about it. In my mind, the freedom of others to do as they wish is more important than my personal comfort. There are certain cases where this does not apply. For example: children and the elderly. I’ll ignore that in order to continue.

To me, this is no different than an overweight person suing McDonald’s because of their weight. It’s difficult to see why someone can even blame someone else for their continual face-stuffing, and even more difficult to see how people like this can win their cases. How is an argument made to focus the blame on those who sell the products that cause harm to the customer? It seems to me that the customer should make a reasonable purchasing decision before they indulge. I would read the court documents that I found online, but I am too lazy/tired.

On second thought, that isn’t such a bad idea. I should start diving in front of slow-moving vehicles and sue the drivers and/or auto makers for my hospital bills plus emotional trauma. I can’t lose. Except maybe functionality of a limb or my life.

Filed under: Culture by kellanstec