San Francisco May Damn-Near Outlaw Smoking

Two new proposals on the table in San Francisco:

Smokers would find it harder to buy their cigarettes and light up in public under two proposals under consideration by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Mayor Gavin Newsom has proposed prohibiting tobacco sales in pharmacies, including Walgreens and Rite Aid. The city's public health chief said the proposal is modeled after rules in eight provinces in Canada but has not been tried anywhere in the United States.

Supervisor Chris Daly has proposed legislation that would vastly limit areas where people can smoke.

Gone would be smoking in all businesses and bars, which now make an exception for owner-operated ones.

Gone too would be lighting up in taxicabs and rental cars, city-owned vehicles, farmers' markets, common areas of apartment buildings, tourist hotels, tobacco shops, charity bingo games, unenclosed dining areas, waiting areas such as lines at an ATM or movie theater, and anywhere within 20 feet of entrances to private, nonresidential buildings.

Mitch Katz, director of the Department of Public Health, said he strongly supports both measures - even if they are angering business owners who say it's one more example of San Francisco City Hall overstepping its bounds.

"Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."

Comments

[Jennifer]

"It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."

So do something to protect us from the obvious risk of tyranny, asshole.

[B.P.]

I don't think it's possible to conduct a bingo game without a heavy veil of smoke.

Next up: no smoking on death row.

[ed]

You just know they'd ban farting if they could.

[Chuck]

ed--

No, they like to smell their farts.

[BlueBook]

Theological/Metaphysical question:

Could the San Francisco Board of Supervisors pass a measure so restrictive that they themselves could not obey it?

[ed]

I'd rather smell a good cigar than a bad fart any day.

[P Brooks]

"Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."

I think I'm going to have to throw a [citation needed] flag on that play.

Coming soon- Risk Aversion Capital of the World, SanFranGooGoo; First Car Free City!

[MP]

"Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."

Then just BAN it! Stop pussyfooting around and BAN it! Only gutless (or smart, depending on perspective) politicians implement a ban by "Death By 1,000 Cuts".

[Nigel Watt]

"It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."

ASDLFKJASDLKFA. We're gonna need a bigger flamethrower.

[Cool Cal]

Not sure if there are any other Angelenos out there, but Adam Corolla on his radio show often refers to the aforementioned city as "The People's Republic of San Francisco".

[MP]

rental cars

Everyone one of the areas that Supervisor DoucheAdaly wants to regulate has at least a whiff of second-hand smoke. But rental cars? RENTAL CARS? Now you can get cancer from second hand smell? GMAFB!

[Zeb]

It's the number one cause of preventable death because people smoke, not because they are mildly annoyed by the odor of tobacco smoke on the way in to an office building. Jesus titty-fucking christ. Shit like this is going to drive me to start smoking again.

[fish]

We're gonna need a bigger flamethrower.

Maybe two or three.

[Steve]

It's the number one cause of preventable death because people smoke, not because they are mildly annoyed by the odor of tobacco smoke on the way in to an office building.

So you are saying secondhand smoke is harmless?

This may not be about secondhand smoke, but rather a way to encourage people to quit.

[Paul]

Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."

This is bogus on its face. Even if one could prove that tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of 'preventable' death in the U.S., wouldn't it follow that it would also be the government's job to protect us from the No. 2 cause of preventable death... then the No. 3 and so on and so forth?

[J sub D]

"Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."

So outlaw it, you irresponsible fuck.

[tarran]

Michael Katz, I have some other ideas for you too.

Every year 40,000 people die on the roads. We need you to save us from this scourge by banning cars as well.

Oh, and hundreds of people drown every year. That's preventable too. Ban swimming too, and boating as well.

People die in falls all the time. We ought to ban gravity as well.

Fucking Pierson's Puppeteer wannabee.

[Paul]

This may not be about secondhand smoke, but rather a way to encourage people to quit.

You're kidding, right?

If you want to really encourage people to quit, then ban it, just like heroin, pcp, marijuana and cocaine are banned.

[P Brooks]

What happens if you slip and fall down one of those really steep hills? I think we should just bomb it flat, and then cover it with really thick shag carpet.

[J sub D]

So you are saying secondhand smoke is harmless?

I'll wager it's less harmful than charcoal grills and automaobile exhaust. I'll wager a lot.

This may not be about secondhand smoke, but rather a way to encourage people to quit.

Like it's anybody business what somebody a free person does with their own goddam body.

[J sub D]

If you want to really encourage people to quit, then ban it, just like heroin, pcp, marijuana and cocaine are banned.

And we all know how well that's working out.

[MP]

tarran,

Traffic laws are very similar to area-specific anti-smoking laws. Both are justified as harm prevention techniques, in the public sphere, to reduce the chance of Person A harming Person B. And they are both also endorsed by people who believe that the state has a duty to prevent Person A from harming themselves.

Thus, to be consistent, if you believe that area-specific smoking bans are illegitimate, and if you believe that second-hand smoke poses a legitimate measurable risk, wouldn't you also have to believe that traffic laws are illegitimate?

I don't think the issue is a police power issue as much as the illegitimacy of the second-hand smoke argument in the first place.

[Zeb]

I don't think second hand smoke is completely harmless, but I am saying that smelling a bit of smoke outside from time to time is not going to do you any harm that can be distinguished from the million other non-harmless things you are exposed to every day.

What they should really do is ban preventable death altogether. Problem solved.

[WLC]

Maybe dude should pester hospitals over preventable deaths, rather than grandstand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis (scroll down to Incidence and Importence)

Or, as others here have pointed out, go for atual de jure, not just de facto prohibition.

[Bingo]

What if my unbridled lust for Angelina Jolie causes me to kill myself if my fantasies are not fulfilled? Thats a preventable death and I demand the government do something about it!

[Eric S.]

What's the point of complaining anymore? Certainly no "slippery slope" argument exists; we slipped long ago.

[BG]

It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks.

Not if they are informed, sane adults who want to engage in the risky activities; and your form of "protection" is to take away their freedom to do so.

Of course I know I am preaching to the quire.

[J sub D]

MP, see my point about charcoial grills and auto exhaust.

[BG]

Traffic laws are very similar to area-specific anti-smoking laws. Both are justified as harm prevention techniques, in the public sphere, to reduce the chance of Person A harming Person B. And they are both also endorsed by people who believe that the state has a duty to prevent Person A from harming themselves.

Thus, to be consistent, if you believe that area-specific smoking bans are illegitimate, and if you believe that second-hand smoke poses a legitimate measurable risk, wouldn't you also have to believe that traffic laws are illegitimate?

I don't think the issue is a police power issue as much as the illegitimacy of the second-hand smoke argument in the first place.

If a few people walk down the street smoking, its pretty easy for me to not hang around them long enough to inhale a significant amount of second-hand smoke. Even if someone is hanging out outside my appartment building smoking, I can walk quickly past them and inhale little or no carcinagens(sp?).

By contrast, if someone is driving the wrong way on the highway, or running red lights into perpendicular traffic, avoidance is not nearly as easy.

[Vanessa]

This is unwelcome news on the heels of the state legislature's attempt to ban trans fat in restaurants and LA's push to ban fast food in South Central.

[Terry P]

"It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."

Wait a second. If it is obvious, why in the heck does the gov't need to protect us from it. If it is so stinking obvious we will do what is necessary to protect ourselves. We don't need gov't doing it for us. We are adults aren't we. Oh that is right, all the stinking politicians think we are children and need them to tell us what we can and can't do.

[MP]

J sub D said:

MP, see my point about charcoial grills and auto exhaust.

Traffic regulations are not meant to impact auto exhaust.

That's not my point. My point is that if you believed that the risk factor from second-hand smoke was very significant, then if you support traffic regulations, you'd have a hard time arguing that some level of public sphere smoking regulations weren't also legitimate.

Thus, around this issue, the debate is around the legitimacy of the risk factor of second-hand smoke, not the legitimacy of the police power to regulate in the presence of risk factors.

[Big Swifty]

"Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."

Is tobacco smoke really worse for you than the exhaust from internal combustion engines? Or is the automobile just not considered preventable, but cigarettes are?

[MP]

BG said:

If a few people walk down the street smoking, its pretty easy for me to not hang around them long enough to inhale a significant amount of second-hand smoke. Even if someone is hanging out outside my appartment building smoking, I can walk quickly past them and inhale little or no carcinagens(sp?).

Again, that's a discussion of risk factors, not the legitimacy of the police power to regulate in the presence of risk factors.

[Art-P.O.G.]

"Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's the parents' responsibility to protect people kids from obvious risks."

I'm sure this has already been pointed out. To death.

[PapayaSF]

Come on, folks, now that they've given San Francisco safe and clean streets, wonderful public schools, lower taxes, and made MUNI run on time, our supervisors are just looking for more problems to solve! /sarcasm

Big Swifty: They'd ban internal combustion engines if they thought they could, but even in SF they'd be lynched. Also cigarette smoke has lots of noxious crud not present in exhaust, and nobody sucks it directly out of tailpipes. Not even in SF.

[JW]

"It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."

If it were obvious, we wouldn't need you to do anything. I can generally avoid falling into large, open holes in the ground without help from anyone else.

[Steve]

Like it's anybody business what somebody a free person does with their own goddam body.

When I am paying your health insurance thru taxes, it sure as hell is my business if you don't live a healthy life.

[creech]

In America today, you can proscribe almost anything that is used by or enjoyed by less than 50% of the voters.

[BG]

Again, that's a discussion of risk factors, not the legitimacy of the police power to regulate in the presence of risk factors.

Ok, fair enough.

The mayor's statement made it sound like, (as others have suggested) this is calculated to discourage people from smoking to protect them from themselves; regardless of the presence or absence of a legitimate externality risk.

The statement: "Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. - period" is implausible unless you are including actual smokers, not just people who breathe in second hand smoke.

[Steve]

In America today, you can proscribe almost anything that is used by or enjoyed by less than 50% of the voters.

What's the problem, that is how democracy should work.

[tarran]

MP,

I agree partly that smoking laws are like traffic laws. here's where they are different:

No traffic law forbids someone from driving on their own driveway while talking on a cell phone. Police don't lie in wait on the property of ranchers watching for seatbelt violations. A drunk guy who drives his bike into a tree does not face a felony drunk driving prosecution.

In the case of smoking laws, the state has decided to enter the property of others and dictate how they use it. In the case of traffic laws, the state limits enforcement (generally) to government roads

Otherwise the similarities are indeed there. This is not a winning argument from my perspective; I am an anarchist. I don't think we should have traffic laws because I don't think we ought to have government owned roads.

If a private road owner wants to prohibit people from driving faster than 100 mph on his road, or talking on a cell phone while driving on his road, or from driving the wrong way on his road, or from driving cars with no seatbelts on his road, then that's his business.

Of course, if there is sufficient demand, some road owners might cater to commuters who desire to travel at 150mph. And if a potential customer cannot find a road owner who is willing to accommodate his desired means of travel than that's OK.

Similarly, I think the owner of a house or building or walkway should be the final arbiter of whether or not smoking tobacco (or marijuana or opium or cow-poop for that matter) is permitted on his property. Unless I own it, it's none of my business what he does.

[CD]

Nigel Watt wrote:
"ASDLFKJASDLKFA."

So, um... What?

[BG]

When I am paying your health insurance thru taxes, it sure as hell is my business if you don't live a healthy life.

If that is your complaint, lobby the government to reform medicare and other programs so that smokers who get sick from it have reduced coverage (or no coverage).

But fair is fair. Smokers pay more in taxes on average because of the massive cigarrete taxes. And they consume less social security on average because they tend to die sooner. So if we do some cost benefit analysis, and determine that they are actually saving us money, don't complain if there is a push for lower cigarrete taxes or some kind of smokers' rebate.

[J sub D]

When I am paying your health insurance thru taxes, it sure as hell is my business if you don't live a healthy life.

One, I didn't ask you, a free person, to pony up for my health care.

Two, did you go to the gym today? The lack of cardiovascular exercise causes many an early death. If I inspect your larder might I find some "unhealthy" foods that you and yours regularly eat. Poor diet likewise kills a large quantity of people. Do you suggest that beause I pay taxes that I make it my business that you take better care of yourself?

Three, the lie that smokers add to the health care costs above what they pay in additional taxes has been so thoroughly debunked that only a uninformed fool would even attempt to raise it in a forun frequented by intelligent well read folks.

In summary Steve, you are full of shit.

[BG]

In America today, you can proscribe almost anything that is used by or enjoyed by less than 50% of the voters.

What's the problem, that is how democracy should work.

Well then, I'm sure glad I live in a Constitutional Republic, where majority rule is not absolute and certain individual rights are protected even contrary to the will of the majority.

[Marlboro Man]

Steve | July 16, 2008, 5:24pm | #

When I am paying your health insurance thru taxes, it sure as hell is my business if you don't live a healthy life.

You don't pay for my insurance, douche bag. Now go fuck yourself.

[miche]

When I am paying your health insurance thru taxes, it sure as hell is my business if you don't live a healthy life.

That's a taxation/redistribution argument, not a health one. Plus, as someone mentioned, your poor argument could include a number of unhealthy things.

FWIW, I went to the doc yesterday for a routine checkup and was asked about my smoking and drinking. I answered that I do both regularly but work out daily, try to get 4 six mile runs in per week, play tennis and have just added golf to my physical activities list. The doc didn't say another word about my smoking habit.

[Marlboro Man]

Well then, I'm sure glad I live in a Constitutional Republic, where majority rule is not absolute and certain individual rights are protected even contrary to the will of the majority.

Bingo. Dan T. er, Steve, hopefully you'll remove your head from your anus long enough to read this post. We don't live under mob rule. If we did, I'm sure you would've been strung up a long time ago.

[tarran]

In America today, you can proscribe almost anything that is used by or enjoyed by less than 50% of the voters.

What's the problem, that is how democracy should work.

I take it that when a majority feel that black people should not be permitted to buy land in certain towns it's just dandy as far as Steve is concerned.

20% of the country smokes, so i should expect them to drop dead any time now.

Like when they are in their 80s like my inlaws who started smoking as teens in the 20s?

it's bullshit to spend the money that the states got from the cigarette companies. I'm not denying the .2 correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, but there's a much better chance to receive an incorrect medication or get an infection during a hospital stay.

Maybe if more people invested in tobacco companies and less in insurance companies the propaganda would be going the other way?

I'm guessing this site skews young, since if you could remember how much smoke used to be in office buildings you'd know second hand effects of smoke, while statistically measurable, are really just nonsense.

[MP]

tarran,

Except of course that not all smoking bans apply to private spaces.

My point in general though is that a number of commenters took issue with the statement:

"It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."

I suggest that that statement is generally accepted by a vast majority of the population, including minarchists, as accurate. The disagreement arises, not with the accuracy of the statement, but with it's application. There are at least three ways to broaden that statement:

1) Obvious risks (i.e. risks with high probabilities and high benefit from prevention) from others while in public. - This is the one that the vast majority agrees with.

2) Obvious risks from others while in privately owned "public spaces". - This is the one that most libertarians and anarchists disagree with but a high majority of non-libertarians agree with.

3) Obvious risks to themselves - This is the baliwick of the nanny statists and those like Steve who believe that society bears the costs of certain individual risk takers.

And of course, finally, one will be debating what is an obvious risk.

Thus, it's not quote itself that is offensive. What is potentially offensive is what you find when you peel back the layers.

[Jaybird]

They can't pass a law telling the homeless to go away.

They can't pass a law making it illegal to be homeless.

They *CAN*, however, pass a law making it miserable to have a smoke if you're poor. Do you really think that working folk will be arrested for this crap? No more than they're arrested for weed.

This is an anti-homeless law masquerading as a public health law.

[Rhywun]

This is an anti-homeless law masquerading as a public health law.

Hm :/

Maybe there's a kernel of truth there (if there's anything SF knows about, it's the homeless) but I think it's mostly just anti-smoker. I lived there for a year and they really, *really* hate smokers. And that was 10 years ago.

[Paul]

When I am paying your health insurance thru taxes, it sure as hell is my business if you don't live a healthy life.

Steve,

Please forward a copy in an H&R post all of your pertinent details. Caloric intake per week. BMI, drinking habits, drug use (legal and non-legal), exercise frequency, sleeping habits, sexual activity (gay/straight) etc. Your lifestyle choices are potentially costing me money. Once we get a comprehensive list of your habits, the H&R posters will come up with a regimen that you will live by that satisfies us that you're minimizing our cost for your healthcare.

[eric]

You guys need to post about the Indianapolis airport complete smoking ban. As of July 1 it is illegal to smoke anywhere on the airport grounds, including in the parking lots and beyond. I tried to sneak out into the parking lot for a cigarette WAY away from any people after being accosted by a police officer in front of the terminal where normal people smoke. They were actually running police patrols in the parking lot looking for smokers!!! I literally had to crouch down between SUVs like I was shooting heroin or smoking in the high school parking lot.

Unbelievable. No doubt the cops will pay for themselves with nice fat nanny state citations.

[e]

I concur that this is probably more anti-homeless than anti-smoker. If they were serious about wiping out smoking, they'd first have to send the jackbooted thugs into the numerous larger concert halls (eg Great American, Fillmore) where invariably huge clouds of marijuana smoke hang over the larger shows.

[Bob Smith]

Every year 40,000 people die on the roads. We need you to save us from this scourge by banning cars as well.

Considering the standard leftist response to cars is to strangle them into uselessness by not upgrading road capacity in concert with population growth (true moonbat cities like Portland reduce road capacity in order to intentionally create congestion) and build monstrously expensive and terribly useless public transit systems, "ban cars" is exactly what they would do given the chance.

[Chloe]

Stuff like that really makes me almost hate that city. I know there are normal and non-whacko people there, somewhere, and it's not right to generalize them all. But good god, what a garden party of stuck up, stick up their bums, elitist asses that could benefit a good touching up with a riding crop. Talk about putting your own self on a pedestal.

[Malto Dextrin]

San Francisco may damn near outlaw smoking.....tobacco.

[Harry Callahan]

yeah just like seattle tobacco will be attacked but not weed. and sf is one place that loves its weed. some forms of smoke are more equal than others. any knee jerk liberals want to take that on?

[Abhishek]

Indeed, it's scary listening to these public-health fanatics. By their logic, speed limits should be lowered to 10 mph, burgers and cokes banned and motorcycles outlawed. Gambling and extreme sports ought to be banished from the face of the earth. And did I forget to mention unprotected sex?

Its a simple enough principle but some don't get it. Costs and benefits are different for different people. An act that one person views as self-destructive is completely worth the risk to another.

Now the smoking ban of course goes beyond nanny-statism. It is also about protecting other people from the risks of second-hand smoke. That's a laudable intention and as a libertarian I have no quarrels with the underlying principle. But how does preventing the sale of cigarettes from certain shops or preventing their use in private bars designated for smoking serve this goal? People who enter such a bar or restaurant usually do with the intention to smoke - those who do not can always choose not to enter.

And whats this about banning smoking in rental cars? Second-hand scent? WTF?

Ultimately, we must recognise these type of bans for they are - an act of those who are pompous enough to believe others' well-being is their business and deluded enough to think they are in a better position to make these value judgements than the individual involved. The result is further expansion of government power in an era when the threat to civil liberty and personal freedom from such intrusions gets bigger every day.

I realize of course that I am preaching to the choir here.

[Brandybuck]

What get's me is the brain damaged attitude that San Fransisco is somehow in favor of freedom. Libertarians gleefuly wet themselves over gay marriage and medical marijuana, yet shit like this only demonstrates the underlying fasco-communism at the heart of San Fransisco politics. Newsome isn't a hero, he's a dangerous public enemy.

[Catal Hyuk Hyuk Hyuk]

B.P. | July 16, 2008, 4:02pm | #

Next up: no smoking on death row.

Silly wabbit, smoking is death row!

BG | July 16, 2008, 4:43pm | #

Of course I know I am preaching to the quire.

Naw, we went paperless a while ago.

[juris imprudent]

I wonder how SF liberals can reconcile this with their laissez-faire attitude about smoking pot. Obviously that is second-hand smoke they wouldn't object to being exposed to.

[Just sayin\']

If you want to really encourage people to quit, then ban it, just like heroin, pcp, marijuana and cocaine are banned.

And we all know how well that's working out.

It is undeniable that, like prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of a substance *does* reduce consumption. The question is, do the negative consequences of prohibition outweigh the bennefits (my answer is yes.)

[Just sayin\']

What if my unbridled lust for Angelina Jolie causes me to kill myself if my fantasies are not fulfilled? Thats a preventable death and I demand the government do something about it!

You might as well off yourself and give darwin his due; she's not that hot. (and I'm betting she is not going to age well at all, you can already start to see it.)

But if you said either scarlett johansen or anne hathaway, then, sir, that is a matter of national greatness, where we must pay any price, bear any burden, etc.

[smartass sob]

FWIW, I went to the doc yesterday for a routine checkup and was asked about my smoking and drinking. I answered that I do both regularly but work out daily, try to get 4 six mile runs in per week, play tennis and have just added golf to my physical activities list. The doc didn't say another word about my smoking habit.

I have read that strenuous cardiovascular exercise is very hard on smokers' cardiovascular systems - even somewhat dangerous. I don't know how heavy a smoker you are, but I would think your doctor would have advised you to either give up the smokes or give up the exercise - especially the running.

[e]

Double standard fascism though it may be, I'm fine with banning cigarettes but letting people puff weed, cigars and pipes. Pipes smell good because of all the scents they mix in the tobacco, and cigars (good ones especially) have a nice aroma too. But come on, cigarettes just smell nasty!

[The Bearded Hobbit]

.. Mrs. Hobbit and I used to love to go to San Fran for vacations .. lovely place, and the food! (I am a hobbit, after all) .. but ever since the handgun ban I have not spent one cent there .. a smoking ban will drive another nail in the coffin ..

.. Montery is our new favorite place .. it's still in the PRC but free enough for now ..

.. (burp) Hobbit

[TallDave]

Heh, I thought hippies were supposed to be libertarians.

[BG]

Fuck; "choir" not "quire" in my 4:43 comment.

[dr_dog]

The Canadian laws that this is modelled after have merely resulted in pharmacies and grocery stores walling off a portion of their floor space, adding a separate entrance, and calling it a different business.

So, extra cost to business, and no effect on whatever the problem was supposed to be. Ain't that always the way.

While you're at it, check out the ban on cigarette displays in Ontario.

[R C Dean]

It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks.

So, since there is an obvious risk to having unprotected sex with multiple partners, is San Fran going to outlaw that, too?

It is undeniable that, like prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of a substance *does* reduce consumption.

Sure, casual, harmless consumption. Really heavy/compulsive users, the only ones who are harmed by their habit, are probably mostly unaffected.

[JohnD]

Yeah, what Jennifer said (1st post)

[annef]

Govt isn't going to ban smoking. It gains too much in tax revenue from tobacco sales. Here in Texas our most recent tax increase was slated to go toward education. I can't find any sign that it was so directed. In this instance I propose a bumper sticker: If you can read, thank a smoker.

In addition, this state received $17.3 Billion in a settlement with tobacco industry. AFAIK the state has probably spent $17.3 thousand on anti-smoking programs. So where's the money?

Am always amused when sitting at an outdoor patio on a busy street when people glare at smokers. Would you rather have a chat with a smoking friend in a garage rather than in a garage with a car engine running? I thought so.

Given that children are serious disease vectors (they catch all sorts of stuff from one another) I propose child free venues. Too much perfume free areas. As well, I'd like to propose 'disapprover' free zones.

I consider the practice of banning smoking in private business a property rights infringement.

I'm old enuf to remember when I'd have a smoke in my OB's office after regular examinations. I remember smoking in my hospital room.

Ah, the good old days when the HealthScare industry didn't exist.

The government that governs least governs best.

[Neu Mejican]

MP,

A nice contribution to the debate with the traffic law/smoking regulation analogy.

I don't think the issue is a police power issue as much as the illegitimacy of the second-hand smoke argument in the first place.

The legitimacy of the 2nd-hand smoke argument is very context specific. It is valid in enclosed spaces (we share the danger), not in open spaces (danger only for the smoker).

Regarding the health impacts of tobacco.
They include lung cancer, but are not limited to lung cancer, particularly for children.