Smoking Bans

Control Freaks Still Targeting Tobacco

Rule-makers always want more.



Control freaks want to run your life. They call themselves "public servants." But whether student council president, environmental bureaucrat, or member of Congress, most believe they know how to run your life better than you do.

I admit I was once guilty of this kind of thinking. As a young consumer reporter, I researched what doctors said was bad for us and what products might harm us. Then I demanded that the state pass rules to protect us from those things. The concept of individual freedom was not yet on my radar screen. I apologize. I was ignorant and arrogant.

But at least I had no real power. I couldn't force consumers to avoid unhealthy things or pay for certain kinds of health care. I couldn't force any business to stop selling something. Only government can do that. Only government can use force.

Sadly, government is filled with people just as ignorant and arrogant as I was.

Economist Matthew Mitchell of the Mercatus Center likes to point out that governments impose regulations without acknowledging that the new rules will have unintended consequences.

Bans on smoking in restaurants and bars is one of the control freaks' favorite campaigns. "A recent Cornell University of Wisconsin study," Mitchell says on my show this week, "found that in those areas where they introduced bans on smoking, you saw an increase in accidents related to alcohol. The theory is that people drive longer distances in order to find bars that either have outside seating or are outside the jurisdiction."

I selfishly like smoking bans. I don't like breathing others' smoke. But the majority of us shouldn't force our preferences on the minority, even if they do things that are dangerous. Smokers ought to be allowed to smoke in some bars, if the bar owners allow it. But today in about half the states, no one may smoke in any bar.

It's totalitarianism from the health police. If secondhand smoke were dangerous enough to threaten non-smokers, the control freaks would have a point, but it isn't. It barely has any detectable health effect at all.

Rule-makers always want more. At first, they just asked for bans on TV's cigarette ads. Then they demanded no-smoking sections in restaurants. Then bans in airplanes, schools, workplaces, entire restaurants. Then bars, too. Now sometimes even apartments and outdoor spaces. Can't smokers have some places?

So far, smokers just … take it. But maybe that's changing. The town of Westminster, Massachusetts, recently held hearings on whether to ban the sale of tobacco products altogether, and 500 angry people showed up.

One said, "I find smoking one of the most disgusting habits anybody could possibly do. On top of that, I find this proposal to be even more of a disgusting thing." Good for him.

Mitchell warns that "we are accustomed to thinking about the federal government and federal overreach. But a lot of the most intrusive regulations happen at the local level," as in Westminster.

In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, police charged two pastors and a 90-year-old volunteer with giving food to poor people in public. Florida law declares it illegal to give away food in an outdoor location without providing public toilets. The restrictions were instated in the name of "public health and safety."

In New Jersey, churches were forced to stop offering Thanksgiving dinners to poor people because they didn't have "properly licensed commercial kitchens."

A court threw out a soft drink ban imposed on my city, New York, by then-mayor Bloomberg, but my new control-freak mayor, Bill de Blasio, plans to reinstate the ban.

The rules keep coming. Another New York regulation, banning trans fats in restaurants, led to stringent bans on which foods people were allowed to donate to the hungry. I'd think the poor have bigger problems than trans fats. Their biggest problem is the same one we all have: too much government.

NEXT: It's Not a Typo: Michael Cannon on Obamacare's Exchange Subsidy Provision

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If the progs get away with it, smokers will become like gays in the 50s – despised and harassed.

    1. We’ll always have the sodomy.

    2. Aren’t they already?

    3. Will this make it socially acceptable to be a fag basher?

      1. the first mayor that tries to ban it needs his face on a meme for Fag Bashing

  2. The anti-smoking people should really be beside themselves with joy given how much smoking has declined. But the won’t be happy until no one can enjoy a smoke anymore.

    1. Fuck these people.

      as if the truth about smoking was ever not known, people have called cigarettes coffin nails and death-sticks for as long as they’ve existed.

      1. Seems like the tobacco companies did do some shady stuff for a while. But it’s not as if anyone was really fooled. Certainly not anyone who actually smoked or is under 60 or so.

        1. for sure, but do you really believe people ever thought inhaling smoke had zero negative affects? Also which do you think was worse for your health living in a city 60 years ago or smoking a pack a day.

          1. No, but I’m one of these crazy people who doesn’t believe that people are forced to accept everything that corporations tell them as fact.

    2. They’ll never be happy. Because they have a pathological obsession with control, because they are terrified of everything. They will keep taking more and more control, but they will never be satisfied because there will always be something that they can’t control, and that will always become their next obsession.

      1. Yes. It never stops with them. Because what they want is the action of control and of banning things, the feeling of power it gives. As soon as they get a ban or a restriction, their craving is right back again and they want more.

        1. Tobacco is addictive. Powerlust progressive.

        2. I don’t think it’s a power thing, they’re just terrified of everything and somewhere in their animal brains they honestly think that if they can childproof the entire world then they won’t be afraid anymore.

          1. It’s really a lot like gun control supporters. Especially in places like the UK where some now want to move on to banning knives. They really seem to think that they can sanitize the world so that bad people won’t have the means to do bad things.

          2. I would agree with you. But, this phenomenon seems to be generally inversely proportional to one’s exposure to said “danger”. If it were genuine fear, you’d expect it to be the opposite. Also, taking the example of vaping, you’d expect support from those afraid. Instead you get vehement opposition.

            I suspect deep inside the reptile part of the human brain is an instinct that really does like bossing other people around.

        3. their craving is right back again and they want more.

          So they’re like smokers then?

        4. I think it’s both control and terror. On some level, it’s terrifying to the nannies that there are people out there who don’t want to live as they do, and don’t validate their life choices by choosing the One True Path just as the nannies have. It’s so deeply unsettling that they have to find a hamfisted way of making the “deviancy” stop.

    3. But the won’t be happy until no one can enjoy a smoke anymore.

      Ain’t that the truth. I’ve seen rumblings about how various countries, and anti-smoking groups within countries, are pushing for a “vision zero” – positively no smokers, at all. They’re not satisfied with “very few people smoke”, they want NOBODY smoking. And I think the mask has really come off at this point. There’s no other harmful behavior that’s subject to that kind of insane demand. We kind of acknowledge that some people are going to drive too fast, some people are going to drink too much, some people are going to eat too much, and nobody demands that we drive those things completely to zero. But smoking just drives these people nuts; the existence of a single smoker is an affront to them. That’s why it’s more like a religion than a legitimate public health concern.

    4. I wonder when their crusade is going to start chafing with the pro-pot crusade. Or maybe it already is but the MSM refuses to shine a spotlight on it. It’s kinda amusing to see two factions in the same political party go at each other. Just like the feminists and the Muslim activists, or the environmentalists and the energy labor unions.

  3. One said, “I find smoking one of the most disgusting habits anybody could possibly do.

    What the fuck is so “disgusting” about it? It’s just burning leaves, for fuck’s sake, and unless you are too lazy to move a couple of feet away from someone smoking, it doesn’t affect you in the least.

    1. burning leaves is bad, they must be composted to shrink our carbon footprint, with the exception of weed because thats better for you or something.

      1. also hookah is okay to because it’s filtered through the water.

        1. Hookah “smoke” is the vaporized honey and glycerine mixture. There’s some charring of the tobacco, but not a complete chemical composition change like burning leaves in a cigarette.

          (hookah smoker for over 7 years now)

          1. “chemical composition change”


            1. FMT (flame modified tobacco)

              WE MUST BAN IT

    2. Some smokers certainly have disgusting habits (such as not emptying ashtrays until they catch on fire or are about to overflow). But, yeah, how is it inherently a disgusting activity to smoke some leaves?

    3. It stinks. It makes the person’s clothes stink. Their breath stinks. Their fingers stink. If they smoke in their car, then the inside of their car stinks. Not to mention the reason everything stinks, which is the sticky tar that is forming a film on everything the smoke touches. That tar rubs off, so if you sit in their car, or enter a smoke filled room, then the stinky tar is now on you and your clothes, and now you stink. And then there’s the ash everywhere, and the piles of butts. It’s disgusting all around.

      1. Let me guess. You puke when you enter a home with a fireplace?

        1. Let me guess. You have no argument?

          1. No, I can’t argue with someone that whimpers about ashes and is afraid to shit because it’s sticky and smells.

            1. Sure Tony, whatever you say.

              1. You really didn’t make an actual point, sarc. You just complained a lot about things that can be avoided.

                1. I wasn’t making a point. I was answering a question. It wasn’t meant as a complaint either. Just an observation. Holy shit you people have thin skins.

                  1. Holy shit you people have thin skins.

                    Maybe a “pile of butts” is why we come here…wink wink.

                    1. Along with the Mexicans and marijuana…

                  2. Come on people. I have to agree with Sarc on this one. My daughter smokes and her rooms and car smells like crap.

                    Everytime I go in her room, the word disgusting comes to mind.

                    That being said, I try to discourage her, but its her life.

                    1. It is possible to make it less gross even if you smoke indoors. I smoke and I smoke in my house. I’m sure you can tell when you come in my house, but it doesn’t smell like old, nasty ashtray. I go in some people’s houses or cars where they smoke and I find it disgusting. I think it is mostly a combination of not emptying ashtrays and the brands that some people smoke. Some really do stink worse than others. I find Marlboro lights to be particularly stinky after being extinguished.

                    2. Marlboro Lights are the most horrible cigarette I’ve ever had outside of Soviet cigarettes, which were so bad that I don’t even want to dredge up the memory.

                      See, I smoke outside. I don’t smoke a lot, mostly at night after getting stoned, and I just won’t smoke inside. No problems then.

                    3. I just won’t stop smoking in my house for several reasons. For one thing, if I’m going to smoke, I’m going to enjoy it. And it’s cold out. Then I also feel like if I did stop, I’d be giving a small victory for these assholes. Shit, I’d probably have quit by now if it weren’t for those awful people.

                    4. I quit smoking indoors in the 90s. I prefer not to live in an ashtray.

                    5. Not to any particular comment above: When I was young lad (in the 70s) and didn’t smoke and did not live in a smoking household, smoking was everywhere else and I simply don’t remember any other friend or relative’s smoking-allowed house, car, bar or restaurant reeking of smoke like people describe today. Which leads to the question, exactly how much of this described intolerable “reek” is brainwashing from the media and anti?

                    6. yeah but think about it this way
                      you pay the overlords a gluttonous tax to fuel your oppression
                      eventually you will get sick from perpetuating the activity then you will fund big pharma to try and fix your cancer, which continues the flow of your money into the hands of the oppressors.
                      all in all
                      smoking helps big government by funnling money into group that lobbys for things like the drug war
                      and taxes into the hands of the tyrants.
                      fight against big government, quit smoking what they tell you to.

      2. Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

        1. It’s an honest answer to what I thought was an honest question. My bad for mistaking CIYP for an honest person.

          1. Every time someone says, “my bad,” I see this. And now you get to see it, too.

            I can understand where you’re coming from, though; some folks don’t like it. I’m not a huge fan of it, but there are other smokes I enjoy smelling out in public. I like knowing I’m not the only one in the area who’s having a good time.

            1. Thing about tobacco smoke is that it is especially “sticky” if that is the right word. The film that it leaves behind on walls and windows is pretty much unique to tobacco. Marijuana smoke doesn’t do the same thing, nor does a smokey fireplace. Tobacco smoke just leaves this layer of tar on anything it touches. That’s just how it is.

              1. Yeah, it is. As I was reminded of when I took down pictures to repaint some walls in my house.

                1. You ever cleaned a hash pipe or a chimney? How often something is burned and how it is ventilated has more to do with whether you notice it or not. Try one of those vacuum ashtrays and yes, there will be residue inside it, just like a weep pipe or a chimney.

                  1. “weep pipe”

                    exactly what she said

          2. I accepted your honest answer. My honest assessment of your opinion is that I find it girlish and cute.

      3. That tar rubs off, so if you sit in their car, or enter a smoke filled room, then the stinky tar is now on you and your clothes, and now you stink. And then there’s the ash everywhere, and the piles of butts. It’s disgusting all around.

        I didn’t know whether you were talking about smokers or hipsters.

      4. If the argument against smoking was ever “I’ts nasty” I mist have some sympathy. It never is. It’s always “It’s affecting the health of people who don’t do it.”

        Now, I suppose, that’s possible. Certainly the vast majority of “proof” that has been trotted out is bushwa, though. And we know, for a fact, that exposure to loud noises causes traceable damage to everyone that hear it. So, why aren’t noise ordinances enforced with anything like the ferocity that anti-smoking ordinances are? Because the anti-smoking Crusade consists of a bunch of one issue nut jobs who are ready to make everybody around them miserable if they don’t get their way.

        Prohibition had an effect that doesn’t get talked about much; it rehabilitated public opinion of drunks for something like forty years. The “Lovable” or “Wise” drunk that you can see in popular culture from the 1920’s to the 1970’s (it still holds on some places, but it’s mostly past now) all started in the Prohibition era. Nick Charles? Prohibition era. Dean Martin’s persona as a glamourous drunk? Hit its stride in the 1960’s and was only beginning to be mocked in the mainstream on the late 1970’s.

        1. Cntd.

          This “smoking must be stamped out” mentality is going to backfire. Indications are that we will see widespread cures for cancer, CURES mind, in my lifetime (I’m 50). When that happens the “Smoking causes Cancer” argument goes pift. If it has become an “outlaw” activity, undertaken by raffish types who defy the Norm, then we’ll never get rid of it.

          The only smart thing the Crusaders have done so far is NOT try to make tobacco illegal. They are at least dimly aware that that trick never works. But they seems o think they can sneak up on it by degrees, and they can’t.

          The regular stories we get on how smoking among teens is down? I frankly don’t believe them; teenage smoking is illegal, and teens have no reason to believe that anything they tell the authorities will be held in confidence because by the time they reach their teens they have almost certainly had such confidences violated by well meaning dolts at least once. Tobacco sales are down? Are they? All tobacco? Or just cigarettes? And if it’s just cigarettes, how sure are you that the black market isn’t taking up the slack?

          1. Cntd.

            I know the smokeasies are already in place. Several years ago I was in a doctor’s office, reading an old New Yorker (because, what else does one do in a doctor’s office?) and read a piece about the widespread unlicensed after ours clubs catering to the Hispanic illegal immigrant population of Manhattan and the five boroughs. The Author didn’t make a big deal about it, but he mention that almost everybody there smoked (another population that probably does’t answer polls honestly). So when the fools do get around to making smoking illegal, or just hone you are sick to the teeth of bang told you can’t smoke where you drink, they’re already set up. Probably be polite to learn some Spanish, and be prepared to stand a round.

            1. So when the fools do get around to making smoking illegal, or just hone you are sick to the teeth of bang told you can’t smoke where you drink, they’re already set up. Probably be polite to learn some Spanish, and be prepared to stand a round.

              Naw, the black market is nothing if not responsive. There will be smokeasies established for all segments of the population.

              1. But the ones already in place will have a big jump on the competition, and their style will have an effect.

          2. I tend to believe the stats that smoking rates are way down. Social attitudes about smoking have changed a lot.

            But it’s true, you never know, especially with teens. Maybe it moves underground, but it certainly seems like a lot less people are smoking.

            1. It would seem that way because you’re not allowed to smoke anywhere. Especially the bars and coffee shops that closed from lack of customers.
              A long while back I went to a Denny’s restaurant in the Poconos that had a long line outside and was half empty. Everyone in line was waiting for tables in the smoking area. The nonsmoking area was completely empty.

        2. I wasn’t making an argument about anything. I was just answering a question as to why some view tobacco smoke to be disgusting.

        3. +1 Foster Brooks

      5. Yes, this.

        Also, I’ve eaten food that had cigarette ashes in it. We’ll just say I didn’t go back to that restaurant.

        1. At least they covered up the pube with something

      6. It’s even worse for me. I have some sort of allergy to some additive they put in cigarettes that causes me to get a big itchy skin rash whenever cigarette smoke comes in contact with it. It’s not the tobacco itself because I don’t get this problem with cigars or pipe smoke generally, just with mass produced commercial cigarettes.

        1. Interesting. Do you know whether “all natural” cigs like American Spirit have the same effect? Because there is a big difference in PH between cigarette smoke and pipe and cigar smoke. That’s why giving the kid who was caught sneaking a cigarette a cigar and waiting for him to get sick is such a cliche; it doesn’t matter if he’s habituated to cigarette smoke, he isn’t prepared for cigar smoke, and he’s used to inhaling, so he’s gonna get a lungful.

          1. I don’t know anyways who smoke “all natural” cigs, so I don’t know or who rolls their own from loose tobacco, so I can’t say.

            1. They tend to be two very different markets, but then I spent some time as a tobacconist, so maybe I notice things about my customers that others wouldn’t.

              Pipe tobacco often has additives of various sorts, and some cigars are as “natural” as a McDonalds Chicken Nugget.

              Anyway, given the reaction in question I doubt you want to do extensive testing.

      7. All absolutely true, and yet no justification for bans.

        I have a personal smoking ban. I don’t want anybody smoking in my house or car, and I have never and would never smoke. But I have no right to tell someone else what sort of permastink they should be willing to tolerate on their own property.

      8. I lived in a small apt building where 1st floor residents stunk up hallways with smell of curry

        I have worked in offices where perfume smells are overpowering from workers

        we live in the world and we need to make accomodations and compromises

    4. So why doesn’t your lazy ass move away from people when you smoke?

      I would definitely not want to be in a non-vented room with someone smoking..

      1. Then…move away from the room in which people are smoking?

        1. no you put the toilet seat down when you need to go!

    5. I like the smell of burning leaves. Most cigarette smoke makes me gag, however.

      That said, I wouldn’t say it’s THE most disgusting habit. There’s still chewing tobacco for that honor.

      1. Oh, if we’re going to talk about disgusting habits, I think I can nominate several that make smoking seem pretty small beer;




        Accordion playing

        Evangelical Vegetarianism

        Hobby Protesting

        Anyone else want to chime in?

        1. Is hobby protesting protesting someone else’s hobbies, or being a part-time protestor for the sake of protesting?

          1. The latter. I have no problem with people protesting about something they believe strongly about. Hobby protesters are twerps.

          1. That was kind of cool.

          2. “A gentleman is someone who knows how to play an accordion and doesn’t.”

        2. evangelical pedophilia

          1. I wish that wasn’t a thing, but it is.

        3. Voting Democrat

          Farting in the office

          Drinking my last cup of coffee

    6. It’s disgusting because it means the smoker winds up stinking too. Then they come hang out in my office and the smell remains for hours. But it certainly is no business of the town to tell them not to smoke because of it.

      1. smell remains for hours?? please…

    7. I think the person quoted is taking it a bit far, but for me (a non-smoker) it depends on the type of smoking. I’ve always considered cigarette smoke stinky, but pipe smoke pleasant.

    8. the smell is disgusting to me personally, and i developed this insane survival strategy… i walk away from people when they are smoking so that i do not have to smell it, i know its a new and daring concept but i hope it catches on

  4. Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

    1. First I read of this.

  5. The best libertarian defense for anti-smoking laws that I’ve seen was someone pointing out that the law already prohibits non-smokers from using force against smokers to stop smokers from aggressing against them with toxic chemicals, so anti-smoking laws simply level the playing field.

    1. By this logic, starting my car is aggressing against bystanders.

      1. Or wearing shitty perfume.

        1. I feel no discomfort in exposing non-smokers to smoke smell in the great outdoors. I will stop the minute everyone stops exposing me to balsam of Peru which unfortunately I am allergic to and is fucking everywhere.

    2. smokers to stop smokers from aggressing against them with toxic chemicals

      If second-hand smoke posed a health risk that was not swamped by multitudinous other environmental factors, this might be a start on an argument.

      But its not, so its not.

      1. If second-hand smoke posed a health risk that was not swamped by multitudinous other environmental factors, this might be a start on an argument.

        This is the only true reasonable argument. At what level does SHS pose a risk greater than the act of simply living?

        1. Put it this way; In the EPA’s report on their metastudy on “Environmental Tobacco Smoke”, the agency admitted (pp 33-36, I believe, but it has been some years since I read the thing) that the highest level of secondhand smoke concentration they expected to find in real life amounted, if one were exposed basically constantly, to smoking two-fifths of a cigarette a day.

          Other studies done to measure actual exposure in places like bars have found that it runs even lower. Naturally, the American Lung Association doesn’t talk about this much.

          Secondhand smoke is unpleasant (I smoke cigars, and find cigarette smoke annoying). So are a lot of things we tolerate in the name of not letting our so called “Betters” run every aspect of our lives.

      2. Even then, it wouldn’t justify bans on private property.

    3. Oh man, I love people who buy into the second-hand smoke bullshit. It’s an immediate sign of a moron who does no due diligence whatsoever when someone tells them something. Or a sign of a person who doesn’t care if it’s true or not because it reinforces their hate of the smell of cigarette smoke.

      Either way, it’s the sign of a shithead.

      1. Either way, it’s the sign of a shithead.

        A shithead incapable of independent critical thought, at that.

      2. I went to college with a guy who admitted that he thought it was dangerous for him to spend 0.5 seconds passing through the dispersing smoke cloud of a smoker that was walking in front of him outside.

      3. Secondhand smoke concerns are 98% bullshit. The remaining 2% is people like me with hypersensitivity pneumonitis who actually do have some health problems from smoke–although that applies whether it’s tobacco, pot, roasting coffee, a poorly ventilated kitchen, whatever. Singling out tobacco is idiotic. Also, like peanut allergies, it’s ultimately my responsibility.

        1. Also, like peanut allergies, it’s ultimately my responsibility.

          Not only are you a victim blamer, you suffer from false consciousness as well.

          Off to the re-education camps for you.

        2. How dare you take responsibility for your own life and actions!

          1. It’s not my fault! I was raised by a dysfunctional family that taught me to do this!

      4. They have a billion living people who are proof that this is bullshit, too.

        Consider any reasonably healthy older person, age 65+. For decades, this person worked in an world where smoking was allowed in workplaces. Lived in an environment where more than half of everyone around them smoked. Went to restaurants, bars, and theatres that had no concept of a “smoking section,” because the entire place was the “smoking section.” Took trains, buses, and airplanes where smoking was permitted.

        And yet, these people who absorbed “secondhand smoke” like sponges, literally everywhere they went, are making it into their 70s, 80s, 90s, and beyond. A lot of them, it seems, since we have an aging population, generally. Hmmm.

        1. My favorite people are the ones who walk past a smoker OUTSIDE and cough as they pass.

          Never mind the idling buses on Madison Ave 2 feet to your left, or the cars&taxis; stuck in traffic and spewing exhaust…

          it is 2nd hand smoke that ruins NYC air quality

    4. If you’re worried about second hand smoke killing you, then you really don’t have enough shit to worry about in your life.

      1. HA!

    5. The best libertarian defense for anti-smoking hate speech laws that I’ve seen was someone pointing out that the law already prohibits non-smokers speakers from using force against smokers speakers to stop smokers speakers from aggressing against them with toxic chemicals hate speech, so anti-smoking hate speech laws simply level the playing field.

      1. Except that “hate speech” doesn’t aggress in the libertarian sense against anyone. Whereas if someone was spraying an imminently lethal dose of carbon monoxide in your face, libertarian principles would clearly let you use force against that person to stop the attack. The question is where is the dividing line as to what level of threat permits the use of force to stop the attack.

    6. Yeah, because all non-smokers are completely helpless and cannot walk away from the act of smoking, let alone keep themselves from walking toward smoking to begin with, when located on privately owned property.

    7. THAT is NOT a libertarian response at all.

      The idea that smokers are “aggressing” (what a sissy term) anyone by smoking is BS – and simply viewing the world that way is a dead give-a-way that you are an bullying, whining imbecile.

      You are too lazy to go somewhere else – and you are too whiny and entitled to just put up with a minor annoyance in public – and want to threaten people with jail – JAIL, you ever been there – for incoveniencing you with their smoke. Let me guess – You consider yourself “tolerant”, don’t you?

  6. I don’t like Stossel, .

    But I agree with him on this one.

    I only smoke weed. I do not smoke cigarettes or pipes or cigars.
    They should not outlaw the sale of these.

    The smoke is such that it imposes on other people that find it offensive. Physically offensive and makes some people sick,. I’m OK with outlawing it in public places and have designated places to smoke. They should do the same with Weed…have a designated place to smoke weed.

    I also support labeling the content of anything I ingest. The only reason big tobacco doesn’t want the label is because of the garbage they put in a cigarette.

    I love McDonalds McGriddles. I eat them once or twice a month. I use to eat them twice a week until I saw their cholesterol content. I still eat them, but I cut down. This is want companies don’t want.

    1. Do you really think that the content of the unregulated weed that your consuming is safer than one of the most regulated products brought to market with maybe the exception of crude oil? If so you should probably consider political leanings.

      1. Mine is grown locally in a hydro lab in his basement. It’s Vitamin E and UV Lighting….THat’s It.

        I don’t buy bags from the street and haven’t for over 15 years or so.

        1. And somehow that’s safer than a plant that (literally) grows naturally in my back yard?

          Smoke is smoke.

          1. There does seem to be some evidence that weed smoke is less likely to kill you with cancer than tobacco is. Of course, it is too hard to do a proper study to get really good results because of the silly legal status of weed.

            1. For one thing, you need a lot less smoke to use it, and vaporizing pot is fairly common for frequent users. But I still doubt that inhaling burning plant matter is healthy regardless of what plant it is or how it was grown.

              1. No, breathing in smoke is never going to be healthy in the sense that it has any positive effects. Smoking pot certainly isn’t improving lung function overall. But according to what seems like the best evidence to me, there does seem to be a lot less cancer associated with pot smoking than you would expect. There is some evidence for anti-cancer effects from cannabinoids. Sure would be nice if people could do proper studies on it to find out what those effects might be.

            2. Well, it’s hard to say. The concentration of several “known carcinogens” is higher by weight. OTOH, nobody who smokes ten joints a day, every day, really needs to worry about cancer; they’re going to wander in front of a bus first.

              And, since the actual biological mechanism that causes cancer is not yet identified, and the experiments that resulted in many things being labeled “known carcinogens” are in many cases questionable, nobody pontificating one way or another really knows what the hell they are talking about.

      2. Do you really think that the content of the unregulated weed that your consuming is safer than one of the most regulated products brought to market with maybe the exception of crude oil?

        Yes. Objectively, it is.

          1. I think there is a lot of evidence to support the idea that cannabis is less harmful than tobacco. But as I keep saying, the status of cannabis as Schedule I makes it nearly impossible to find out in a rigorous, controlled way.

            1. I think theres probably a great deal of evidence that no illegal drug is as dangerous as government.

      1. It’s. A. Sockpuppet.

        1. What is a Sockpuppet?

          If figure after being called this for the last 7 years I’ve been on, I want to know from you. what is it ?

          1. 7 years and still haven’t figured it out. It means genius.

            1. That was FUCKING GREAT !!!

              But honestly Sarcasmic, aren’t we all sockpuppets with the exception of the authors of these articles?

              1. aren’t we all sockpuppets?

                Woah, that’s like deep, man.

                1. We’re all God’s Sockpuppets.

                  (great band name)

                  1. I am a meat popsicle.

    2. The smoke is such that it imposes on other people that find it offensive.

      IF we’re outlawing things that some people find offensive, then I guess we should have no problem outlawing, say, Hawaiian shirts?

      1. no no no i like those shirts…plz no.

        I lived in a coop in Fort Lee NJ in which the Board members would not approve Korean applicants (even all cash strong buyers) due to the smell that’s left in the hallway after they cook.

        I guess it’s a toughy to call.

        1. I guess it’s a toughy to call.

          As far as passing laws to outlaw things that are merely “offensive” to some people, its really not.

      2. IF we’re outlawing things that some people find offensive, then I guess we should have no problem outlawing, say, Hawaiian shirts?

        I find farts offensive. Can’t I just say “excuse me” after I smoke?

        1. I find people that want to outlaw things that they find offensive to be offensive. Can we outlaw them?

          1. Oooh. Meta.

        2. It’s rude to deliberately fart on other people. It’s also rude to smoke around other people without getting their permission.

          1. It’s rude to call you a fucking asshole. Are you suggesting we make laws against rudeness, you fucking asshole?

            1. Oh, come now. Tony isn’t a fucking asshole; he’s clueless twerp.

          2. It’s rude to deliberately fart on other people.

            And yet you grace us with your presence so often.

      3. Do they have pinup girls on them?

    3. I love McDonalds McGriddles. I eat them once or twice a month. I use to eat them twice a week until I saw their cholesterol content. I still eat them, but I cut down. This is want companies don’t want.Meanwhile, at the McDonald’s Evil Corporate Fortress of Doom…

      Evil McDonald’s CEO: Evil minions! Report on the progress of our evil corporate profits!

      Evil McDonald’s Corporate Guy: Evil Happy Meal sales are up! Evil McRib sales are also up! The limited run is working precisely as planned!

      Evil McDonald’s CEO: Excellent! Excellent! What about our evil McGriddles?

      Evil McDonald’s Corporate Guy: Umm, well, evil McGriddles are down, sir. Alice Bowie has cut back on consumption of them.

      Evil McDonald’s CEO: What? I won’t be able to afford my new yacht powered by slave labor! NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

      1. …and they call me a troll….

        That’s far from what I said or meant.

        1. This is want companies don’t want.

          Maybe clarity of thought should be a primary goal in your writing, then. As if McD’s gives a fuck what you, as a single customer, do or don’t buy.

          1. Actually, based on their response to complaints, they give a big fuck what a single customer does or doesn’t buy.

            1. The benefit of bigness. There could be 10,000 Alice Bowies, bravely not buying McGriddles to improve their health and “stick it to The Man” and it wouldn’t hurt McDonalds’ profits in any significant way because their profit-margin on soda and non-dollar menu items (especially the fries) combined with their sales is makes for good money.

              1. Wort that would happen would be McDs removing the menu item for poor sales and putting something else up.

              2. You seem to be conflating McD’s with “McD’s franchises.” The corporation doesn’t give a shit about individual customers, but the individual franchise owners absolutely do.

                1. Oh come on. Franchisees would rather trade on McDonalds’ built-in procedures, supply chains, advertising and customer base than build their own from scratch, otherwise, they wouldn’t be franchisees. And a McDonalds’ franchise is a license to print money, assuming the franchisee doesn’t fuck it up completely.

                  1. Yeah, you’re not even close there.

    4. In other words, your optimal legal system would be designed around your personal preferences, not around a rational system of principles.

      1. I hate to break the news to you but, the legal system is designed around the personal preferences of the constituents that vote in the law maker.

        1. So I expect to never hear a philosophical argument from you again. Preference is all that matters, the fickleness of the mob.

    5. Why are you ok with outlawing things in public places?

    6. Big Tobacco knows that they will get it in the neck for a lot of things they do to tobacco at the behest of the government. I have had anti-smokers tell me that they take almost all the nicotine out and then out it back just to “hook” people. They do that because the government decided that it wanted accurate measurements of how much nicotine there was in a cigarette, and wasn’t going to take “tobacco is a natural product, there’s a lot of variation” for an answer.

      Big Tobacco resists any and all efforts at further regulation because they have learned that nothing they ever do will be enough, no action they ever take will be accepted as well intentioned, and the only chance they have is to hold the line wherever they can.

      They are selling a product commonly used for hundreds of years to people who buy it voluntarily. Are they angels? Probably not. But the hysterics who treat them as if they were as bad as Stalin are a bigger threat to my wellbeing.

      1. I have had anti-smokers tell me that they take almost all the nicotine out and then out it back just to “hook” people.

        Ridiculously impractical and meaningless to do that. For one thing it would mean storing a poisonous chemical in large enough quantities to make it actually dangerous.

        The biggest additive in cigarettes is actually chocolate, believe it or not. Cigarettes are engineered for flavor, not nicotine content.

        1. They are very carefully engineered for nicotine content, because the State will land on them like a ton of rectangular building things if they aren’t.

          1. “IThey are very carefully engineered for nicotine content, because the State will land on them like a ton of rectangular building things if they aren’t.”

            What they probably do is grow different strains of tobacco with different typical levels of nicotine and mix to a standard content.

    7. Businesses are private property. Anti-smokers are free to patronize no-smoking businesses, but aren’t happy until they control other people’s property.

    8. Enjoy your free speech zones

  7. I never thought I’d be able to find love by the age of 19. I LOVE JOHN STOSSEL

  8. But remember, everyone:

    The slippery slope is a fallacy. I know this because Tony, Plugs, and their fellow travelers told me so.

    1. Yes, slippery slope is a fallacy. What you have here is incremental change, which is different. The two are different because something something something…

      Yeah, I’ve actually been in this conversation.

      1. $park?’s head exploded

        Nooo! Poor $park?.

        1. It was shortly after engaging some Democrats who call themselves Independents. They were of the belief that the Republican party has gone so far right that the Democrats had to take up a center-right position just to keep balance. These champions of the center then agreed that the country would be perfect if everyone were a Democrat. And yes, they believed Libertarian = Republican.

          1. Technically they would have to go far left in terms of balance, but I don’t suppose brilliance in the basics is one of their traits.

    2. It’s just their way of disassociating actions and their consequences.

    3. Right. No slippery slope with asset forfeiture. More like a cliff.

  9. You know, I never found smoking in a bar offensive. Granted, I’ve never found cigarettes offensive, either. I can’t imagine banning something in a public space just because some folks subjectively found the smell “offensive.”

    Some folks also find feedlots and sriracha processing plants offensive smelling. Guess we better ban all of those, too, at least in instances where the smell wafts into public spaces.

    It’s gonna be fun.

    1. Riven’s just pissy because she’s afraid she’ll be banned for her BO. Take a shower for once, damn it!

      1. I’m sorry!

        I’ll try something like this* tonight, OK?! Just get off my back!

        *Well, obviously not quite like that.

        1. Oh man, I didn’t realize it was so bad that you smelled like a skunk. Have you seen a doctor about that? Is it a glandular condition?

          1. It’s just a symptom of my toxic halitosis. Of course, the drugs they want me to take to manage the symptoms have symptoms worse than that–anal leakage, uncontrollable proggism, etc.

            Eventually I’m going to kill myself with my own stink, and there’s not a damned thing I can do about it.

            1. “How did she die?”

              “She reeked herself to death. Do you think she was a fan of Game of Thrones?”

              1. But, oh, how I lived!

                It’s amazing how freeing it is to realize you can never verbally/visually offend someone when you’ve already deadened one of their other senses with your funk.

    2. I’ve been in bars where you couldn’t see five feet for the ciggie smoke. I found it horrible, so I left.

      My rights have been violated. I may never recover.

      1. I had guys smoking in their duck blind this week. I was their guest. I found it horrible, but I stayed. Shooting ducks was more important than my mild discomfort.

        Personal decision.

        1. Initially read as “I had guys sucking dick in their blind this week.”

          1. Dee: Why would you wanna have sex with someone you can’t see?

            Dennis: Well, Dee, I think the real question is…why wouldn’t you wanna have sex with someone you can’t see?

        2. Speaking of ducks and smoking, I once helped waitress in a bar for a Ducks Unlimited banquet while I was in college. This was before the smoking ban, I believe, and I spent about six hours inside that bar, bussing drinks, and generally making mad tips. I walked out smelling like an ashtray, and the next day I was so sick, I was throwing up.

          But you still don’t see me advocating we lock smokers up, even if the smell makes me physically ill after prolonged exposure.

        3. I found it horrible…mild discomfort

          “After the duck hunt I was viciously thrashed with the remaining duck feathers until I giggled”

    3. I have a hard time breathing around people who are smoking. It’s like the smoke targets and goes straight into my nose. But, it’s not that hard to find a place where people aren’t smoking.

  10. In New Jersey, churches were forced to stop offering Thanksgiving dinners to poor people because they didn’t have “properly licensed commercial kitchens.”

    These weasels demonstrate why you can’t rely on voluntary charity! Not properly licensed!

  11. Hey, that place lets people smoke. I won’t go in there. Or maybe, I smoke so lets go there cuz they let people smoke. Fuck you if you say, “I don’t smoke so nobody can smoke anywhere”.

    1. Stop abetting SMOKE CULTURE

    2. The ban boners don’t even care about the smoke. That’s why they’re going after e-cigarettes even more vehemently than they did regular cigarettes. They just want to ban everything that they don’t like, period.

      1. Well, remember that they are animists. They are going after e-cigs because they are totemically like cigs: they look like them, they are smoked with the same motions, they give off a “cloud”. To animists, this is enough for an e-cig to get lumped into the same totem as regular cigs, and so they hate them. Logic and reason do not even remotely factor in.

        1. E-cigs are just a way for us “former” smokers to thumb our noses at the do gooder nanny type freaks.
          Heh, I get to act like its a real smoke and it LOOKS like a real smoke with all the observable triggers… (vapor cloud etc..) AND I still get my nicotine hit.
          It just drives them absolutely nuts. Therefore, it must be banned.

          Gotta wonder though, when will they come after the Nicorette gum or the patches……

          1. “Gotta wonder though, when will they come after the Nicorette gum or the patches……”

            They wont – Big Pharma is a major funder of the anti-smoking crowd.

      2. Can someone give me a quick and dirty run-down of what substances people use in e-cigarettes? Is it just tobacco/tobacco-less products?

        I’m asking for, uh, a friend.

        1. E-cigs use a solution that is infused with nicotine (in various concentrations, there are stronger and weaker choices). The solution itself is usually mostly propylene glycol. I think there may be people who vape stuff that has no nicotine, but I imagine that’s pretty rare as…what’s the point. The solutions are often flavored, ranging from fruit flavors to nicotine “flavors” to anything they feel like.

          1. Interesting!

            There must be a similar device stoners use? A friend of mine shared his with me once. I was amazed at the lack of odor; if I hadn’t been flying high, I wouldn’t have thought I’d done anything at all.

            1. The weed vaporizers just take finely ground weed and heat the shit out of it, so hot that it just vaporizes and there’s basically no smoke (that’s why they are great for asthmatics and other people with lung problems). They don’t use a propylene glycol solution infused with THC, though I am sure that is forthcoming.

              And yeah, weed vapers get you high as shit because they are so efficient.

              1. I thought people were processing weed with some solvent to pull the THC out of it, while leaving the flavor and odor behind, and using that the make a liquid that could be used in a E-cig.

                Keep hearing these news reports about people blowing up their garages while trying to use liquid butane as the solvent.

                1. I “process” weed with high-proof alcohol to extract the THC but I’m not dumb enough to try and vape that. I’m almost that dumb, but not quite.

                  Seriously, though, THC vaping solution is going to be here soon if it isn’t already, especially here in WA or in CO, unless there is some chemical reason it’s not feasible. And since it won’t smell like weed…hello getting stoned on planes!

                  1. I “process” weed with high-proof alcohol to extract the THC but I’m not dumb enough to try and vape that. I’m almost that dumb, but not quite.

                    That grabs all the resin, not just the active ingredients.

                    I believe there is a different process with different solvents that leaves the flavor and odor behind, allowing a vaping liquid to be made.

                    1. Sarc, and Epi. The process is a liquid c02 extraction. Anyway here is a link.


                    2. Here is another link for those who are more visual.


              2. Not just forthcoming but they’ve been around. My friend bought them at the dispensary when he lived in Cali and makes his own weed vape solution now that he’s back in Texas. Uses the same ecig equipment just with the THC vape juice.

            2. We Reviewed Snoop Dogg’s New Line of Vaporizers


            3. yes you can make it through a similar process and just use the E-cigs. do not use food glycerine it has sugars in it.

      3. It’s messier than that. There are some things they don’t like that they also don’r care about ? for now. What they really want is to make others do what they say. That’s the base of the anti-smoking hysteria, and the “Obesity Epidemic”. These busybodies have had billions of tax dollars and charity dollars spent getting their message out, and there are still some people who won’t do as they are told. THAT’S INTOLERABLE to these twits.

        Sooner or later you come to realize that if nobody smoked, drank, or overate these busybodies would find some other human vice or habit to make a Crusade over, and be just as relentless in their demonization of whatever THAT was.

        Do I think smoking is healthy? No. It’s a vice; you know; one of those little self-destructive pastimes that make life something more than a list of chores. Like gambling, gourmet food, or non-procreative sex.

        These people have been called Puritans. That isn’t fair. The Puritans were a viciously intolerant religious group that emanated to impose their understanding of God’s will on everybody around them, but they seriously believed they were saving souls.

        These swine simply want to push people around. Keelhauling is too good for them.

  12. Stossel I think this ship has sailed. It’s perfectly acceptable to ban smoking indoors where other people have to work all day. Smoking is easily handled with a combination of well-established smoking etiquette combined with a modern appreciation of its hazards and noxiousness. You don’t smoke around other people without asking permission first, and they are perfectly entitled to say no. Bartenders and such weren’t always part of that exchange, so while I actually prefer a bar you can smoke in, I’m willing to give that up since smoking isn’t an activity one keeps to oneself when you’re in a public indoor space.

    1. so while I actually prefer a bar you can smoke in

      Fuck you and your smelly, sticky, tar stained preferences for poisonous gases. Bow before your concerned, compassionate Overlords. Suck in the fresh air and cool climate we provide for you and all mankind

    2. This may come as a shock to you, but before legislation was put into place that prohibited smoking in the workplace and in bars, some were already smoke-free.

      You see, some employers and business owners voluntarily banned smoking without having to be coerced by the government.

      It sounds far fetched I know, that people would do something voluntarily without being coerced, but I can assure you that it is true.

      In fact, I worked for a restaurant that was non-smoking before the city banned it. I know that sounds crazy, but it’s the truth.

      Then when the city banned smoking, my snobby employer’s snobby patrons could go anywhere without being subjected to the evils of tobacco smoke.

      It only took a month before my employer went out of business.

      That part wasn’t funny, because it meant a lot of people were not out of work.

      1. So should cities not be allowed to ban smoking in restaurants and bars… or what?

        1. So should cities not be allowed to ban smoking in restaurants and bars… or what?

          If you really needed to ask that question, you are too fucking stupid to inhale and exhale.

        2. The stupid! It burns!

        3. Should cities be allowed to ban rock music? Some people find it annoying, and there have always been claims that it corrupted the listeners. Damn little evidence, though.

          Cities should be restricted to enforcing some kind of minimally safe building code, hosting a civil police force to try to catch criminals who actually harm people (you know; murderers, thieves, that lot. Not people whose behavior displeases whatever self-important twit has got himself elected Mayor), and maintain basic services such as road maintenance. WHEN they demonstrate that they can do that without exceeding their budget by millions every single goddamned year, THEN we might – MIGHT – consider whether we want to grant them additional authority.

          But until they show they can handle the basics, I don’t see asking them to do anything complex.

        4. no one should be allowed to ban anything on property that is not explicitly theirs.

    3. Bartenders and such weren’t always part of that exchange

      Yeah, they were when they agreed to work in a bar where the owner allows smoking.

      1. Arguing that “bartenders didn’t agree to be around smoke” is like arguing “coal miners didn’t necessarily agree to be around coal mines”.

    4. “Stossel I think this ship has sailed.”

      Has it? Because now bans are spreading outside and into people’s homes, Age of purchase is moving up, Businesses are brazen about not hiring smokers and even outright bans on sale are being discussed. Not to mention lumping E-Cigs into bans with absolutely no justification. Anti is not done and won’t be done until every smoker and vaper is forcibly relocated to a ghetto.

  13. Control Freaks Still Targeting EVERYTHING……..GzbAedgPBG

  14. If you like nanny control freaks, you’ll love this story:

    Iowa girl sent to principal’s office for refusing to be weighed by school

    “Ireland said her refusal to be weighed in front of the class encouraged other girls to take the same position.”

    Gosh, can’t have that sort of individual rights anarchy in TEH SKOOLZ, can we?

    1. They’ll start getting dangerous ideas

      1. First it’s women reading. Then women voting. Then women enjoying sex! Where does it end?!?

        1. A father and his son are in a car accident. The father dies instantly, and the son is taken to the nearest hospital. The doctor comes in and exlaims “I can’t operate on this boy.”

          “Why not?” the nurse asks.

          “Because he’s my son,” the doctor responds.

          How is this possible?

          Answer: The doctor is the father’s friend and secretly knocked up the mom.

          1. I thought the answer was that the father came back as a zombie. Dr. Zombie. I don’t know why I go to him.

            1. If you like your Dr. Zombie you can keep your Dr. Zombie. Period.

          2. The doctor is the boys mother.

    2. There really ought to be at least one public school named after Kafka or Orwell.

      If I am ever in a position of power, I will rename all public schools after various prisons.

      Alcatraz Elementary

      Devil’s Island Junior High

      Lubyanka High School

      1. Dachow central schools

    3. If I were the parent in this case, my reaction would be “If my child doesn’t want to be weighed, then don’t weigh her. If you try to force the issue, I will be the biggest pain in the ass you have ever had to deal with. Teach her to read, write, and do basic math. That’s what you are there for. On all other subjects, when we want your opinion, we’ll squeeze it out of you, like puss.

      In fact, seeing it’s from Iowa, I’m kind of shocked that wasn’t what happened. The Hawkeyes must be getting meek. It’s sad.

  15. I smoked a cigarette once and a hookah a few times. I don’t get the appeal.

    While I prefer not to be around smoke, 2nd hand smoke harms are a myth and the Fabian smoking prohibition project is a contemptible farce.

    Back when The Daily Show was not full retard, they made fun of some anti-smoking types in NYC. The interviewer asked the guy why people shouldn’t be allowed to smoke in public and the guy said “why shouldn’t people be allowed to masturbate in public?”

    Funny, the guy had no problem morally masturbating on camera.

    herp herp herpa derp.

  16. Uhh…body shaming! No wait…authoritah!

    Body shaming! Authoritah!

    Body shaming! Authoritah!

    Body shaming! Authoritah!

    /progressive-statist CPU melts down

  17. The biggest unintended consequence of health behavior fascism is people then living longer until their brains give out and spend the last 3-4 years of their lives sitting in their own shit shoved in a corner somewhere.

  18. That’s funny I always heard Stossel was a closet smoker……..The kind of smoker who occasionally smokes a cigar or cigarette. Perhaps Im thinking of that other reporter I forget his name now he was on ABC I believe it was……………

    Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

    ”Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome?you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

    Read under the title :
    Tobacco Control: The Long War?When the Evidence Has to Be Created

    7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
    November 2004.

    “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

    In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

  20. Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

    It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):


    (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
    Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
    2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
    ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
    long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
    said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
    cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
    (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
    arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
    to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
    therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
    lung cancer.

    1. [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
      Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
      use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
      causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
      cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
      it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
      individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
      (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
      [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
      point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
      case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
      consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
      knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
      individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
      intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
      life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to

  21. Now sometimes even apartments and outdoor spaces.

    My brother fell victim to this. His apartment owner decided that there would be no smoking in the building or anywhere on the grounds. He ended up moving.

  22. Rule-makers always want more. At first, they just asked for bans on TV’s cigarette ads.

    This is why the Minneapolis City Council wants to pass a law that dictate grocery stors carry fresh produce in non-existant “food deserts”. in the city (there are none). Because once they can decide what a store owner must sell, they’ll just keep building on it to the point where they will decide what distributors the owner can by from. The thing is, studies show that when fresh produce is available, the ghetto dwellers opt not to buy it, so it just rots.

  23. One thing I’ve noticed in Casinos, since they’re one of the few public places that still allow smoking: people in the slots area smoke like crazy, but you rarely see people smoking in the poker room.

    1. My husband and I go to the casino not to gamble, but to have a smoke in winter without freezing our asses off.

  24. Earning money online was never been easy as it has become for me now. I freelance over the internet and earn about 75 bucks an hour. Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. A little effort and handsome earning dream is
    just a click away== http://WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

    1. How big was your wife’s sister’s check this month?

      1. as big as his wifes asshole after i finished with her last night, she earned 60 an hour just sitting around at home

  25. Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

    ”Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome?you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

    Read under the title :
    Tobacco Control: The Long War?When the Evidence Has to Be Created

  26. Well a little history lesson is now needed I can see:

    Look who first invented the Passive smoking Fraud

    Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign

    One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

    That’s fine company are so called public health depts. keep with ehh!

    History can shed so much lite on todays own movement it just amazes the mind………..

    Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.”

    1. Something along the lines of the Hitler Youf:
      Proctor (1997) continues that “throughout this period, magazines like Genussgifte (Poisons of taste or habit), Auf der Wacht (On Guard), and Reine Luft (Pure air) published a regular drumbeat against this ‘insidious poison’ [tobacco], along with articles charting the unhealthful effects of alcohol, teenage dancing, cocaine, and other vices. Dozens of books and pamphlets denounced the ‘smoking slavery’ or ‘cultural degeneration’ feared from the growth of tobacco use. Tobacco was branded ‘the enemy of world peace’, and there was even talk of ‘tobacco terror’ and ‘tobacco capitalism’ ?. The Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls both published antismoking propaganda, and the Association for the Struggle against the Tobacco Danger organized counseling centers where the ‘tobacco ill’ could seek help” (p.456-457); “Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.”

      1. Then you watch videos of German soldiers in the trenches smoking cigarettes.

        1. if youve ever been in a war, cancer in 20 years is the last fucking thing you think is going to kill you

  27. Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors – of which smoking can be one.

    Here’s my all-time favorite “scientific” study of the the anti-smoking campaign: “Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths,” Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Journal of Regulation, Vol. 21 (4), 1998.

    You can access the article for free on the Cato Institute’s wesbite, This article neither defends nor promotes smoking. Rather it condemns the abuse of statistics to misinform and scare the public. Levy, by the way taught Statistics for Lawyers at Georgetown University Law School. There is also a popular law school class called How to Lie With Statistics.

    1. That’s like arguing Russian Roulette isn’t dangerous because people who don’t play it still get shot.

      1. 100-year-old Dorothy Howe has puffed her way through nearly HALF A MILLION cigarettes

        Nov 12, 2013 00:00
        By Steve Doohan

        The former secretary has smoked 15 a day since she was 16 and says the killer habit is the key to her long life

  28. Antismoking isn’t new. It has a long, sordid, at times very violent, 400+ year history. There were antismoking crusades long before the large tobacco companies came on the scene. There were antismoking crusades long before movies and mass media. There were antismoking crusades long before attempts, however bastardized, at scientific investigation of smoking. There were antismoking crusades long before the recent concoction of secondhand smoke “danger” [The term “passive smoking”, without basis, was coined during the N#zi era].

    The common theme over those 400+ years is the extent to which rabid antismokers will lie to rationalize their hatred of smoke/smokers/smoking. There’s more than ample evidence over the last few centuries that the rabid antismoking mentality is a significant mental disorder. Yet here we are again.

    It’s America that’s popularized antismoking insanity ? again, and which other countries are following suit. The problem with Americans is that they are clueless to even their own recent history. America has a terrible history with this sort of “health” fanaticism/zealotry/extremism or “clean living” hysteria ? including antismoking – that goes back more than a century.

    1. Antismoking crusades typically run on inflammatory propaganda, i.e., lies, in order to get law-makers to institute bans. Statistics and causal attribution galore are conjured. The current antismoking rhetoric has all been heard before. All it produces is irrational fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, oppression, and bigotry. When supported by the State, zealots seriously mess with people’s minds on a mass scale.…..ot-smoking

    2. The N#zi “war on tobacco”, an extension of the American eugenics war on tobacco:…..PMC2352989

  29. The current antismoking crusade, very much in the eugenics tradition ? involving the same medically-aligned personnel and repugnant methodology, is much like crusades over the previous 400 years. It is a moralizing, social-engineering, eradication/prohibition crusade decided upon in the 1970s by a small, self-installed clique of [medically-oriented] fanatics operating under the auspices of the World Health Organization and sponsored by the American Cancer Society (see the Godber Blueprint ). This little, unelected group, using much the same inflammatory rhetoric of its fanatical predecessors, decided for everyone that tobacco-use should be eradicated from the world ? for a “better” (according to them) world. These fanatics were speaking of secondhand smoke “danger” and advocating indoor and OUTDOOR smoking bans years before the first study on SHS: In the 1970s, populations ? particularly in relatively free societies ? weren’t interested in elitist social-engineering. Given that their antismoking crusade would have otherwise stalled, the zealots conjured secondhand smoke “danger” to advance the social-engineering agenda, i.e., inflammatory propaganda. Until only recently the zealots claimed they weren’t doing social engineering, that they weren’t moralizing. Well, that’s a lie that’s been told many times over the last few decades.

    1. The zealots’ goal this time is not to ban the sale of tobacco but to ban smoking in essentially all the places that people smoke (combined with extortionate taxes), indoors and out. Up until recently the social-engineering intent has been masqueraded as protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”. But even this fraud can no longer be hidden in that bans are now being instituted for large outdoor areas such as parks, beaches, university campuses where there is no demonstrable “health” issue for nonsmokers. This dangerous mix of the medically-aligned attempting social engineering is a throwback to a century ago. We seem to have learned nothing of value from very painful lessons of only the recent past.

  30. Here’s a brief history of the antismoking madness (Godber Blueprint) over the last few decades.

    The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” ? where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
    Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.

    1. While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entrance ways.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.

    2. On top of all of this, there are now instances where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) or multi-day solitary confinement rather than allow them to have a cigarette ? even outside. In some countries there are also compounded extortionate taxes.

      At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. The incessant claim was that they were not doing “social engineering” (prohibition) when the current antismoking crusade has been so from the outset, just like pretty well every previous antismoking crusade. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking ? their smokefree “utopia” ? since the 1960s, and are also in the pay of Pharma companies peddling their useless “nicotine replacement” products. They have prostituted their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology (this is exactly what occurred in the eugenics of early last century). All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO (dominated by the American “model”) and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control).

  31. Add to the list Harvard’s daft “Let’s Be Clear ” campaign to ban the use of smokeless tobacco in Harvard Yard, home to several hundred wood burning fireplaces.

    1. which woods do you burn in a fireplace that put off a repulsive stench that layers everything it touches in a fine yellow layer of tar?
      not saying i think bans are ok just saying a fireplace is hardly a comparison for ciggs

      1. Congratulations cookout fans you’ve just survived being around second hand smoke for 120,000 years of equivalent exposure! YOU SURVIVED CONGRADULATIONS!

        Barbecues poison the air with toxins and could cause cancer, research suggests. A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes.

        Dioxins are a group of chemicals known to increase the likelihood of cancer. The figures were based on grilling four large steaks, four turkey cuts and eight large sausages.”

        Even the CANCER SOCIETY has benefit cookouts yet they push for smoking bans! Talk about being Hipocrits! Heres a real sweety pie of a special hype The Dumbest Fundraising Event Ever? American Cancer Society Joins BBQ Meat “Cook Off” to Raise Money for Cancer Research NaturalNews)

        Texans living in Navarro County are about to win a collective award for being the dumbest people in the world when it comes to diet and nutrition: They are hosting a BBQ meat cook-off to raise money for ? get this ? cancer research!

        Even the Governor of Kentucky and all the Anti-smoking Activists were at Fancy Farm for the big Political Cook Off Cook Out yet they too survived Inhaling 10S OF BILLIONS worth of equal cigarette smoke.

        Even there own Human exhaled Breath creates hundreds of the same chemicals found in tobacco smoke yet we arent outlawing HUMANS FROM INDOOR SPACES………


          Human Exhaled Air Analytics?” Buszewski et al, Biomed. Chromatogr. 21: 553?566 (2007)…

  32. I’m a smoker, I personally enjoy going outside and having a cig. It’s especially useful when you need a break from annoying people.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.