Yes and no. Believe me, I am not trying to take sides on this issue, but there is one significant difference between the two groups that probably has the biggest impact on the law: Non-smokers are not presenting a health hazzard to others. Smokers are since it has been proven that second hand smoke is as unhealthy as actually smoking. It might not seem fair, but that's the way it is in most places. Now, having said that, I would hope that when rating this answer that the answer itself is considered and not one's personal views about smoking.

An american judge put it best: "In a free country your right to swing your arm ends where the other man's nose begins." Your smoking may hurt others, so your right to smoke is less important than other people's right not to inhale your smoke. As long as you don't hurt anyone while smoking, you should be able to do so. As soon as others are around, you should respect their rights, whether the law tells you to or not. Addendum: Somebody wrote "by your logic, no one would be allowed to drive because it would infringe people's right not to inhale gas emissions". You don't know how right you are: We only allow driving because we as a society decided that the benefits outweight its problems (such as pollution or accidents). Smoking has no such benefits, so it doesn't get the same favorable treatment.

After surgeon general reports linking smoking with lung cancer and heart disease, America gradually became a non-smoking culture. For the first time, smokers found themselves outnumbered. Non-smokers began to question the assumption that they had to tolerate annoying behavior from an inconsiderate minority. Getting smoking banned simply because most people don't like it is not a good enough reason, however. Even many non-smokers say there is no such thing as a right to breath smoke-free air. The only right involved is that of the smoker, and any request to refrain from smoking is gross violation of a smoker's god-given liberties. Non-smokers' rights groups focused on the health issue instead. Whether there is validity to the claims that second hand smoke poses a threat to health, prohibitions on smoking are a good thing. In the workplace, for example, nonsmokers (the majority of workers) are free to concentrate on their work without the distraction of coping with smoke fumes and squabbling with obstinate smokers. Even a few smokers can make a plane flight miserable for the majority. Civil liberties buffs are horrified at the idea that smokers are being asked to smoke only in the privacy of their homes and cars provided their smoke does not drift into someone else's air space. What's next, a ban on chewing gum? Meanwhile, nonsmokers still have to put up with unsightly cigarette litter to be found just about anywhere smokers gather.

I've been around longer than I care to admit, and I can recall the days when it was considered fashionable and socially acceptable to light up. Yes, that's the way it was back then, believe it or not. As a result, I grew up with that mindset, and so it has been really tough for inveterate smokers to give up the habit, even in the comparatively short time it takes to refrain from smoking in restaurants and other public places that ban smoking. With the emphasis on health and fitness nowadays, it becomes a big social issue among smokers vs. non-smokers, as to which side has rights. Here's the way I see it, and I may be wrong. I am a smoker myself, and have been for many years. I smoked throughout both pregnancies and around my kids while they were growing up. My parents both smoked around me when I was growing up. Fortunately, none of my family has suffered any health problems as a result. This is not to say that smoking is good for anyone, but on the other hand, I have known many people who have died from lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease, who have never smoked or been around smokers. So I think the jury is still out on the hazards of smoking and second-hand smoke. As for rights, I would never inflict my habit on people who are against it. I don't smoke in anyone's home, office or car, unless invited to do so. My daughters are very much against smoking, so I never light up around them or my grandkids. In public places where it's taboo, I go outside or tough it out. I think restaurants should have separate areas for smokers and non-smokers instead of banning it entirely. The only place I feel I have a right to smoke is in my own home. Who's getting the short end of the stick (or the weed)? I think you know the answer to that.... Goldiemae

I believe the public places that have completely banned smoking should consider the rights of all people and not discriminate. People with allergies or respiratory problems, babies and children, or people who claim the smell of smoke makes them sick, should not have to be exposed to second-hand smoke. I have no argument with that, and I never smoke in anyone's home, office or car, even if invited to do so. What really bothers me, though, is why can't the restaurants, pubs, workplaces, etc., continue to have both smoking and non-smoking areas? This has always worked out until special interest groups found something to crow about, and as one of the other answerers on here indicated, there is more power among the non-smokers, as far as being listened to. Why smokers are so reluctant to make waves, just proves that they are pacifists, and have no desire to create problems for others. One of the biggest arguments for banning smoking is the health issue of customers and employees. Why is it then, that non-smoking restaurants have smoking areas outside of their establishment? Don't they realize that smokers are still going to smoke in their own homes, in their cars, or stand outside in sub-zero weather and puff away? It doesn't make sense to me. Cities in my state that have imposed non-smoking legislation have seen a sharp decrease in business, and in tax revenue. In short, they have cut off their nose to spite their faces. But the government has ruled against smoking, and to answer your question specifically -- No! Smokers have no rights at all. I am a smoker, and I am fuming!! End of rant!

Yes they do! They have the right to pollute their own homes, cars and lungs. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO POLLUTE THE AIR THAT OTHERS NEED TO BREATH!!!! Was I shouting? GOOD!!!! I HOPE EVERY SMOKER HEARD ME!!!! I smoke. Never indoors or near my kids. I practice what I preach. SO IF ANY SMOKERS OUT THERE ARE BELLYACHING THAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE BEING TRAMPLED, TOUGH! GET OVER IT!! Oh yeah, and: SHUT UP!!! Does this answer make you mad? Too bad.

The prohibition of smoking not only infringes on the rights of smokers, but of business owners. The common argument is that second-hand smoke is harmful to non-smokers, and therefor the right to smoke can be restricted. (Mill's Harm Principle) Where the falsity of this argument lies is in its gross overestimation the harm of casual second-hand smoke exposure. This is understandable, countless meta-studies (studies of other studies) have compiled data and have declared that second-hand smoke is dangerous. However, very little study has been done concerning the actual exposure levels required to pass a threshold of harm. It has been established that a non-smoker, living with a smoker, has some risk of developing health problems. It has never been established that incidental contact with smoke poses any real health risk. Many buzzwords are thrown about in an attempt to quash smoking. Detailing the number of "toxic chemicals" in cigarettes is a common practice, completely ignoring the doctrine that "toxicity is in the dose". Anti-smoking campaigns have very effectively scared children away from smoking, by dramatically overemphasizing the dangers. Children grow up, unfortunately. I will point to a few instances here on AB showing some of the falsity that are commonly held and commonly propagated: "Non-smokers are not presenting a health hazzard to others. Smokers are since it has been proven that second hand smoke is as unhealthy as actually smoking." http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/17277 "Smoking is not a right." http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/1385669 "...stop killing yourself and the people around you" http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/2223344 Somehow, the massive push to ban smoking has convinced people that the properties of cigarettes are: 1) All smokers will die of cancer 2) Exposure to any amount of smoke poses a significant health risk to non-smokers. Armed with these beliefs, tempered with the characterization of the tobacco smoker as being "stupid", "dirty" and a danger to others, and the characterization of tobacco company as being inherently evil, activist groups have attempted to destroy the practice of tobacco consumption. As it would have been impossible to make an argument that smoking should be banned when the movement began, the groups instead focused on a ban of workplace smoking. They have succeeded in most of their endeavors, and will most likely succeed in banning tobacco altogether, as public opinion shifts towards a more paternalistic view. What the anti-smoking lobby does not address, is the issue of rights. A person has the right to harm themselves if they are not directly harming others. Even where harm is done, the ability to consent to it is another right. My first concessions to the anti-smoking movement are in the exposure of children, who do not have the ability to avoid many types of Environmental Tobacco Exposure (ETS). It is immoral, and should be illegal for a parent to smoke indoors with a child living in the house. This argument lies in the rights of a child, and the science of ETS exposure. Some have taken this logic and attempted to extend it to mean that smoking can be banned in apartment complexes, where children may live in somewhat connected apartments. However, the science does not support this threshold of harm. I suspect that even if it did, the act of opening a window would be the only requirement of the smoker to avoid harming others. Equally little study has been done on the impact of residual carcinogens on children from a parent who smokes outdoors. If the science supported it, it might be necessary to place restrictions on a parent or guardian. The real issue, I find, is in the banning of smoking in public areas and businesses. The ban in public, outdoor areas is ludicrous, is in no way based on a scientific evaluation of the Harm Principle and usually is shakily justified from an anti-littering perspective. The argument of course exists that a person has the right to work in an environment that is not dangerous to their health. However, we also understand that some risk can exist, and compensation should reflect that. For example, we allow coal mining to continue, despite the dramatic health risks involved in coal dust exposure and the risk of explosion or cave-in. Coal mining continues because the economy demands that it does, and the miners are paid an amount that corresponds with the risk. If they did not, miners would seek safer jobs. A construction worker is much more likely than the average person to be injured by a falling tool, but we recognize the demand for construction and do our best to minimize the risk. Boxers enter the ring for people's entertainment and are assured of harm; they are compensated for the harm, and regulation exists to protect them from major injury. For smoking, the economic demand can come from bars or restaurants who feel smoking increases their patronage. Perhaps a software company feels that if they allow programmers to smoke at their desk, they will be more productive. Other establishments feel that it will harm their business. These businesses are free to choose their own rules. Their employees will make their own decisions, weighing risk factors, and payment rates will shift, most likely increasing the salaries of staff at smoke-friendly establishments. As always, patrons are free to choose, and the prevalence of smoking establishments versus non-smoking establishments will fluctuate based upon market factors. Perhaps science will tells us we should minimize the risk of the staff ETS exposure, requiring a maximum number of hours that may be worked in a week, or restricting shifts to 5 hours. These are the ways in which a legislature can justifiably look out for the public good. Smokers have rights, and businesses have rights and non-smokers have rights. All should be free to exercise those rights as long as they do not cause significant harm to others in doing so. The rights of a person to not be exposed to cigarette smoke begin when non-consensual harm begins. To put it another way, a person's right not to be exposed to incidental tobacco smoke is equivalent to their right not to be honked at, or not to be bumped into on the subway. They may not like it, but it causes no significant harm and is a reality of a free society.

While I certainly understand and sympathize with your position, one could just as easily say “Child molestation is prohibited almost everywhere now. Don’t child molesters have as many rights as those who don’t?” It is generally accepted that government has both the right and the responsibility to prohibit actions that could easily result in harm (either to the person engaged in said action or to others). This is why we have laws prohibiting, say, harmful drugs and/or operating vehicles while under the influence thereof. The same goes for traffic laws and even “no swimming” zones. Hard as it may be to accept, I think the majority of us want to call more things “rights” than actually merit such designation.

These 2 sentences don't hang together. Murder is prohibited everywhere - that doesn't say anything about the "rights" of murderers. We used to defecate in the streets, now we don't - that is what happens as a civilisation advances - we start behaving in a more neighbourly fashion, spitting in public is dying out as well, hopefully smoking will go the same way.

nicotine addiction is a psychological illness, not a gender or race. don't non smokers have the right to breathe clean, fresh air? i think so.