Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Totalitarian Crusade Against Second-Hand Smoke

There are few issues that are as riddled with outright claptrap as the scare about what smokers' puffing is doing to innocent non-smokers.

CigaretteAssef ElweterIf there really were such a thing as a bullshit detector, a machine that bleeped upon encountering nonsense, it would probably go into meltdown whenever someone talked about second-hand smoke.

In the modern public sphere, there are few issues that are as riddled with myth, misinformation, contradictory claims and outright claptrap as the scare about what smokers' foggy puffing is doing to us innocent non-smokers.

In recent years we've been told that second-hand smoke, or passive smoking, as some people call it, is as bad as smoking itself and can give you lung cancer. And apparently if you are surrounded by it in a car that has its windows closed that is like being in the most smoky, nicotine-stained bar you could ever imagine (if such bars still existed, which of course they don't).

Yet it turns out that these claims about the toxicity and cancer-causing powers of other people's smoke are either untrue or unproven. So how do prissy anti-smoking campaigners and health-freaky politicians continue to get away with churning out tall tales about second-hand smoke? Why won't this panic die under the boot of actual facts? What gives it its Michael Myers-like ability to keep coming back, in a crazier form every time, wagging its warning finger at humankind?

The evidence-light nature of the second-hand smoke scare was on full display during British politicians' recent mean-spirited attempt to outlaw smoking in cars in which children are present.

Last week, the House of Lords, our unelected second chamber, gave its nod of approval to a new Bill that would make it an offense to smoke in a car with kids, even if the windows are open. The Bill is now working its way back to the House of Commons, and if a majority of the members there agree that coppers should have the right to stop and threaten with arrest any motorist who has that apparently deadly combination of a lit ciggie and a child in his vehicle, then the Bill will become law and another bit of Brits' everyday freedom will be stubbed out.

Smoking in a car with minors is already banned in Australia, Canada, South Africa and in some American states, including California, Maine and Oregon. These bans capture superbly the zealous miserabilism of the modern-day nannying'n'nudging set. They expose the new authoritarians' casual disregard for the notion of privacy, so that even our privately owned vehicles come to be seen as fair game for petty laws to curb and control what was once perfectly legal behavior; they reveal the nannying lobby's powerful distrust of everyday men and women, who are now viewed as so bone-headed and bereft of decency that new laws are required to prevent them from polluting their own children, both physically and morally; and they show what shockingly low esteem the ideal of autonomy is held in these days, so that anyone who stands up and says "I think adults should be free to choose what vices to indulge in and pleasures to pursue" is either laughed at for being naive or branded a wicked stooge for Big Tobacco.

So what evidence have British politicians cited for their desire to ban smoking in cars? Well, it's not really clear. Peruse British media coverage of the second-hand smoke issue and I guarantee you will end up bamboozled.

One of our public health ministers, Luciana Berger, said last week that the evil of puffing in cars with kids has to be squished because "a single cigarette can create concentrations of tobacco smoke in a car that is 23 times more toxic than a typical house." That "23 times" figure sounded familiar. Where have we heard it before? Ah yes, the prestigious British Medical Association (BMA) once claimed that lighting up in a car with the windows closed creates toxin levels that are "23 times higher than... a smoky bar."

Excuse me? Which is it? Is smoking in a car so nasty that it turns your vehicle into a hurtling smoke machine that is 23 times more toxic than a smoker's house or 23 times more toxic than a smoky bar? It can't be both. You don’t have to be a peer-reviewed scientist to know that a smoky bar will be a hell of a lot smokier than a smoker’s house, so is smoking in a car 23 times worse than the former or the latter?

It gets worse. The BMA has got into trouble for its version of the "23 times as toxic" claim. In 2011 it was forced to correct a press release that said toxins in a smoky car were “23 times greater than in a smoky bar,” changing it to say that the toxins in a smoky car were actually only “11 times greater than in a smoky bar.”

It gets even worse. One of the key studies cited by the BMA as evidence for its massively reduced “11 times as toxic as a smoky bar” claim actually says something quite different. Published in the prestigious American Journal for Preventative Medicine, the study found that in a car with closed windows, smoking generated particulate concentrations of 272 micrograms per cubic metre of air. And it found that in bars, the toxins levels were either similar (smoky bars in Massachusetts had 206 micrograms per cubic metre) or were around double that found in a smoky car (smoky bars in New York reached 412 micrograms per cubic metre).

So to summarize—smoking in a car possibly makes that car 23 times as toxic as  a smoker's house, 23 times as toxic as a smoky bar, 11 times as toxic as a smoky bar, or less than doubly as toxic as a smoky bar. Got it?

The flimsiness of the evidence offered for a ban on smoking in a car with kids is typical of the promoters of second-hand smoke scare. These folk have also told us that second-hand smoke is an "invisible killer" (in the words of Britain's National Health Service) because it "causes lung cancer in non-smokers." Lots of people believe this claim. But there's no evidence to back it up. At the end of last year, the much respected U.S. Journal of the National Cancer Institute carried out an exhaustive study of the research and found "no clear link between passive smoking and lung cancer."

Unperturbed by that blow to their evidence-low but hyperbole-high claims, the anti-smoking zealots have now started talking about "third-hand smoke." This is the residue from smoking that sticks to walls and other surfaces. This week, a report from the University of California, Riverside claimed to have found that mice exposed to such "smoke" (it's not really smoke, of course) became a bit more hyperactive and developed liver problems. One science website headlined its report on the new study: "Third-hand smoke just as deadly as first-hand smoke." Seriously? Who but the most blinkered loather of the pastime of smoking could claim sans shame that touching a wall in a room where someone once had a cigarette is as bad as dragging nicotine into your lungs from an actual cigarette?

What next—"fourth-hand smoke," to describe coming into contact with someone who was once in a room in which someone once had a cigarette?

Why does this fact-lite fearmongering about second and third-hand smoke trundle on even as the evidence for it either falls apart or is laughed out of existence by serious research? It's because the whole idea of second-hand smoke isn’t really a scientific one at all. No, it’s more of a metaphor, a metaphor disguised as science. It's a pseudoscientific allegory for our highly suspicious era in which we’re all expected, encouraged in fact, to see our fellow citizens, our work colleagues and even our own parents as toxic creatures whose very breath and touch might harm us.

What really underpins the obsession with second-hand smoke is not scientific evidence but today’s broader culture of mistrust, our profound sense of alienation from one another. Second-hand smoke is one of the main mechanisms through which we’re invited to see the world around us—its workplaces, bars, restaurants—as threatening, and that world’s inhabitants—strangers, our colleagues, our own families—as poisonous. It speaks to, and further entrenches, today’s fearful and atomised outlook, in which we’re more likely to look upon other people as corrupters of our health and minds rather than as potential comrades or friends.

Photo Credit: Assef Elweter

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    It must be bad, therefore it is.

  • Sevo||

    "So how do prissy anti-smoking campaigners and health-freaky politicians continue to get away with churning out tall tales about second-hand smoke?"

    For the same reason that Obo can stand in front of an audience, claim his twisted medical insurance scam can cut costs and not get hooted off the stage.
    People *want* to believe crap.

  • playa manhattan||

  • Wind Rider||

    Shorter translation "He was drunk!"

  • TDHawkes||

    I don't know if second hand smoke is a health hazard. I do remember choking in closed cars, airplanes, and buildings while smokers filled the air with noxious fumes. I have washed it out of my hair, off my skin, and out of my clothes. I have soaked it out of my contact lenses. I have scrubbed it off the walls of relatives who smoked in their homes. Their homes always stink of smoke whether they are smoking or not. I have suffered every minute around smokers as they polluted my immediate environment. I don't fear smokers. I hate the smoke. Are you saying smokers should have the right to choke non-smokers with their foul fumes? I for one am deeply happy those noxious gases are banned in most public places now. I am all for reason. If there are no health consequences for non-smokers, okay. I still don't want to be abused in public spaces with the very disgusting fumes and consequences of being around smoking.

  • Fluffy||

    Are you saying smokers should have the right to choke non-smokers with their foul fumes?

    The property owner for any piece of property should be able to determine the smoking rules on their property.

    I for one am deeply happy those noxious gases are banned in most public places now.

    My privately-owned or leased space can properly be called a "public place".

    You may wish to call a restaurant, for example, a "public place", but it's not.

  • Fluffy||

    My No privately-owned or leased space

    Sorry.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "The property owner for any piece of property should be able to determine the smoking rules on their property."

    Agreed, though there may be some qualifications for when children are present (though strong, strong deference should be given to parent's choices here).

  • Ballz||

    really?
    It's my property and I'll fart, smoke, smear shit art on the walls and anything else I like. Don't like it? Get out and walk.
    Jeez.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "It's my property and I'll fart, smoke, smear shit art on the walls and anything else I like. Don't like it? Get out and walk."

    Grow up. I am sure there is some limit as to what you would accept a parent exposing their child to even on their property.

  • GILMORE||

    #1 on the list of things I would never accept children being exposed to =

    "Sanctimonious Assholes who insist on finding reasons to mind *other people's business* for them"

    I guess you're not invited for dinner, Bo. Sorry: its for the children and all.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I would think them being your kids they would have become quite immune to that.

  • GILMORE||

    Tu Quoque! FTW

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Do not confuse my turning your childish insult back on you as an attempt at an argument.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Immune to dinner?

    I love dinner!

    I don't want to be around you anymore, Bo.

  • Ballz||

    really?
    It's my property and I'll fart, smoke, smear shit art on the walls and anything else I like. Don't like it? Get out and walk.
    Jeez.

  • Sevo||

    ..."Agreed, though there may be some qualifications for when children are present"...

    Really bo? "Fow the CHILLUNZS!"

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Since children can not be said to have truly consented to some things I think there can be cases where a parent's right to raise their children in any way they want can be restricted. There should be a strong deference to the parents in every case, and I am not saying that second hand smoke satisfies overcoming it, but there is someplace that pretty much anyone is going to draw the line and say a parent can not expose their children to something. Is everyone here for allowing their children to hang out with regular dogfights in the front yard? How about hardcore porn turned on for the kids every Saturday morning instead of cartoons? And those are not even potential physical harms, which second hand smoke may be.

  • GILMORE||

    The reason you are fundamentally wrong is that you start your thought process with completely un-specific definitions of what you think "might" constitute 'inadvertent harm via exposure"... and assume that there must naturally exist a basis for some legal enforcement mechanism to deal with the as-yet unarticulated forms of 'inadvertent harm'. So = as with any good statist, you will accept the implementation of a police-state to act with the best of intentions and criminalize people for behaving in ways you or others might find arbitrary reasons to believe constitute harm, and lock people up, all in the name of "children" who you assume to speak for

    - all while taking zero consideration for the damages caused by the state breaking up families, or the multiplicity of inadvertent harms caused to children by the state serving in loco parentis. because why would anyone think that their kids are being exposed to 'harms' while in school?? that would be ludicrous.

    basically, 30 years ago you would have had no argument against the state removing children from the homes of people who 'smoked weed'; today, this seems preposterous, yet you seem perfectly comfortable with the idea that in any given period that there will exist a *wise group of people* who can clinically determine what *other people's parenting* constitutes "harm".

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, you do not recognize any situation in which a child can and should be removed from the care of their parents?

  • GILMORE||

    REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM!! ANY SITUATION!

    No, shithead. You need to make your case, not demand that "no one else 'cant imagaine' one?" and de facto win your non-argument.

    I mentioned you are a shitty lawyer already, right?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am glad you think it is absurd to suggest that there is not any situation where you would support interfering in parental care.

    So, speaking of non-arguments, what is your criteria for that?

  • GILMORE||

    "'So, speaking of non-arguments, what is your criteria for that?""

    See: what you just did there.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Again, you do not recognize any situation in which a child can and should be removed from the care of their parents?

    Parent deliberately causes direct harm to the child.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    No amount of negligence or reckless disregard would do?

    What proponents of the measure we are debating argue is that parents who smoke a lot around their children in certain situations are likely harming them, and though they do not mean to they should know better.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    You are asking me to give you (the royal) free reign to take rights away from people at your discretion. If I say it's okay to take the kids if the parents leave a loaded weapon under the child's pillow, YOU (the shitbag lawyer) will argue if it's okay to do it for a loaded gun under the pillow, it is certainly not a stretch for a loaded gun in the corner, and then a razor by the sink, then for not having child proof locks on the cupboards, then an unlocked tank of gas in the shed...

    Where does it end? As we plainly see, it doesn't, and we have government taking control of EVERY aspect of our lives FOR TEH CHILRENZ.

    Parent's have the right to determine how much risk they are willing to expose their child to based upon what they know of their child/environment. It is not up to you fucking busy bodies to raise other people's kids.

    If Evel decides he wants to let Bobby jump over cars on his motorcycle...that's Evel's call, not fucking yours.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "You are asking me to give you (the royal) free reign to take rights away from people at your discretion."

    Far from it. I am acknowledging that while there should be a strong presumption against it, there is some area where that can happen. Again, I know there are some parental actions that you would say intervention is warranted, you just are railing against my criteria (without seeming to know what it is) while refusing to supply one of your own. By not doing so you leave the discretion greater than what I am talking about.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Again, I know there are some parental actions that you would say intervention is warranted, you just are railing against my criteria (without seeming to know what it is) while refusing to supply one of your own.

    FUCK YOU BO I already did.

    AGAIN!

    Parent deliberately causes direct harm to the child.

    Examples:

    Parent beating child.
    Parent starving child.
    Parent putting cigarettes out on child.
    Parent raping child.
    Parent torturing child...

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    And I immediately asked you whether any non-deliberate actions would count, and got no reply.

    I mean, according to you a brief, non-intentional, non-damaging stumble onto someone's property warrants state intervention, but seemingly a continuous non-deliberate action which harms a child does not. That strikes me as wrong, no matter how many ALL CAPS and profanity you lace it with.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    No amount of negligence or reckless disregard would do?

    I thought my answer was pretty clear:

    NO.

    Granting you such authority allows you to arbitrarily take my children for any reason you see fit. FUCK OFF SLAVER! I do not grant you said power.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not think you have thought out the implications of what you are saying. According to you, if a drug addled parent fails to feed or change their infant for days (which would be a negligent or reckless omission) you would still think no intervention is warranted because 'slaver, arbitrary, ALL CAPS ANGER!'

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Starving a child would be a form of negligence.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "No amount of negligence or reckless disregard would do?

    I thought my answer was pretty clear:

    NO."

    Under Francisco's stated principle, no intervention would be warranted.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Jesus fucking Christ on a fucking popsicle stick!

    CAN YOU FUCKING READ?

    Parent deliberately causes direct harm to the child.
    Examples:


    Parent beating child.
    Parent starving child.
    Parent putting cigarettes out on child.
    Parent raping child.
    Parent torturing child...
  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    But you also said that no amount of negligence or recklessness would supply the reason. You seem to be saying that negligently or recklessly starving a child does not justify intervention, no?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Is harm being caused to the child?

    Not potential for harm. HARM.

    If harm is being caused he may be removed, even if not deliberate.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    OK, grant me this though, that is something different than what you said earlier.

    Francisco d Anconia|2.9.14 @ 6:02PM|#

    Again, you do not recognize any situation in which a child can and should be removed from the care of their parents?

    Parent deliberately causes direct harm to the child.

    Francisco d Anconia|2.9.14 @ 7:41PM|#

    No amount of negligence or reckless disregard would do?

    I thought my answer was pretty clear:

    NO.

    reply to this

    Bo Cara Esq.|2.9.14 @ 6:10PM|#

    No amount of negligence or reckless disregard would do?

    So maybe a little less 'F*CK OFF SLAVER' next time if you are eventually going to come around to my position!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    The only thing I grant you Bo is that I misinterpreted your question where you changed the argument from one of actual harm vs potential harm to one of minutia concentrating on my use of the word intentional. (par for the course)

    I misread/misinterpreted the following:

    And I immediately asked you whether any non-deliberate actions would count, and got no reply.

    I cede that using the word "intentional" was not correct. But intentional/unintentional has nothing to do with your original argument which was.

    Since children can not be said to have truly consented to some things I think there can be cases where a parent's right to raise their children in any way they want can be restricted. There should be a strong deference to the parents in every case, and I am not saying that second hand smoke satisfies overcoming it, but there is someplace that pretty much anyone is going to draw the line and say a parent can not expose their children to something. Is everyone here for allowing their children to hang out with regular dogfights in the front yard? How about hardcore porn turned on for the kids every Saturday morning instead of cartoons? And those are not even potential physical harms, which second hand smoke may be.

    So for the record, I have NOT "come around to your position", you have NOT made your case, you have only changed the argument halfway through and are now claiming that makes your original case.

  • mtrueman||

    "Under Francisco's stated principle, no intervention would be warranted."

    I won't bother following this little exchange here, even though it has been quite illuminating. It's clear that Francisco is arguing here in bad faith, is backed into bluster and insult to protect an ill conceived position and determined to cast your contribution here in the worst possible light, regardless at what you say.

  • GILMORE||

    "I am acknowledging that while there should be a strong presumption against it, there is some area where that can happen."

    But, you see, he won't give actual examples, so he's being VERY responsible.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Not only did I give actual examples, you just noted them!

    Wow.

  • GILMORE||

    "What proponents of the measure we are debating argue is ..."

    You are not debating. you are rhetoric-ing.

    You have no opinion. You have never made an argument. You 'restate' things no one said and take ownership of nothing.

    You can't respond to 5:03 because you have no argument you're willing to actually state and defend.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is you that have no argument, none whatsoever, just some vague emotional upset.

    I have been plain about my position: parenting that has a high potential of harm to a child, whether done intentionally or with reckless disregard of the child's well being, can warrant state intervention. I gave several concrete examples of this, and pointed it out a second time when you whined about me not having done so. Your trollish response was to repeat your charge of being vague in the same post where you quote the sentence immediately preceding my concrete examples. That is either amazingly sloppy on your part or intentional trolling.

    On the other hand, all you have offered when challenged, other than profanity, is to point to extant 'child abuse laws' about which you appear to be stunningly ignorant (anyone with even a scintilla of knowledge of which would never raise them as the opposite of 'vague').

  • GILMORE||

    "I have been plain about my position: parenting that has a high potential of harm to a child, whether done intentionally or with reckless disregard of the child's well being, can warrant state intervention. I gave several concrete examples of this..

    Dogfighting? Porn on TV?

    Both bullshit and wouldn't under current law justify removing children from home. AND *shouldn't* unless you have some measure of "harm" that the rest of the world isn't yet privy to.

    What DID you have in mind?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Dogfighting? Porn on TV?"

    Oh, so you CAN read!

    "wouldn't under current law justify removing children from home"

    Wrong. If you think that bringing children to a dogfight or having one in your home and allowing the children to be present will not support a removal of children from a home you are flatly mistaken. Ditto for parents who show their children pornography.

    You really have no idea what you are talking about.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is a federal crime, a felony, to bring a child to a dogfight, punishable by up to three years in prison.

    And exposure to pornography can be grounds for child removal (see, for example, STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES v.
    M. P., ET AL, Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2005).

  • GILMORE||

    Shitty laws.

    You make the case that =

    "I know there are some parental actions that you would say intervention is warranted"

    These things are not warranted.

    Now tell me about the things you know ANYONE would agree with... AGAIN?

  • Seamus||

    First they came for the dogfighters' children, but I did not speak out, because I was not a dogfighter. . .

  • FuriousFatMan||

    brainwashing your child w/ religion is more detrimental to their development than being around 2nd hand smoke.

    let's ban religion in homes, since it's negatively effecting children!

    see how bad that will become?

    you use extremes and i do not. you want the line? it's the front door and the shotgun on the other side of the threshold.

    trayvon martins mom walks the street, but i'd be in jail according to your fucking method of thinking.

    NO THANK YOU KIND SIR. i am already more capable in raising my child than ANYONE in the fucking world.

    thanks but no thanks, unless you want to be put in jail for 20-30 years for assaulting your kids when you "spank" them....

    -FFM

  • ||

    The qualifications for when children are present are simple. If you dont want your kids around it, leave and take them with you.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I was thinking of people exposing their own children to certain things.

  • GILMORE||

    OH? "CERTAIN" THINGS?? why didnt' you SAY so!

    Basically, you want to make the definition of 'child abuse' so fuzzy that you allow for the state to apply arbitrary judgment as to what constitutes 'harm'. I'm sure that sort of thing could *never* be abused.

    Seriously, you are one dumb fucking lawyer.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Gilmore, do you ever actually read the comments of those that set you off? You may want to read mine before spouting this nonsense about what you think I said. As to your charge about 'fuzzy lines' I am sure you are no different, that there are conditions you would recognize as grounds to remove a child from a parent, and I imagine your line is no less fuzzy the closer we come to it.

  • wareagle||

    bo,
    there are already are qualifications for children. They are called parents.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    And as I said, there is a strong deference that should be given to them. But I think there are cases where the state can intervene to protect children from behaviors that parents may expose their children to on their own property that can fall outside of that deference.

  • GILMORE||

    ""I think there are cases""

    I think there are powers beyond human perception controlling the universe.

    See, but when I never tell people what they actually *are*? That what makes it a lot harder for people to tell me I'm completely full of shit.

    Its a neat trick, that.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I have several examples supra. Neat trick, that, huh?

  • GILMORE||

    Example A =.....

    derp?

  • GILMORE||

    Your whole non-argument is the case that

    "something beyond physical abuse and/or demonstrated incapacity to function as a parent (Ie. declared insane, violent felony etc)" might qualify as abuse and require intervention....

    This requires you to cite examples and make the case why some vague, third category exists and why arbitrary application of these judgements are in any way worthwhile..

    ...pearl clutching and being aghast at the your peers utter lack of aghast-ness is just pathetic.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "something beyond physical abuse and/or demonstrated incapacity to function as a parent (Ie. declared insane, violent felony etc)"

    Who are you quoting here? Not me.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    4:08

  • GILMORE||

    "' there is someplace that pretty much anyone is going to draw the line and say a parent can not expose their children to something""

    SOMETHING SOMETHING SOMETHING.

    You *graduated* from law school?

    Consider politics instead.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Wow, you could not read the immediately following concrete examples I gave following the sentence you quote and criticize for being too vauge?

    Even for trolling that is pretty bad Gilmore.

  • wareagle||

    yes, if children are being physically/emotionally harmed, the parents be arrested and the children taken away.

    The question becomes, where is the point of differentiating harm the child IS feeling from harm the state believes the child should be feeling? If smoking becomes the bar, someone will try to lower it even further.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That is a question that, as I have said, should be answered with very strong deference to the parents. But the idea is that smoking actually physically harms children present around it in some situations.

  • GILMORE||

    But the idea is that smoking actually physically harms children present around it in some situations.

    Not paying your fucking heating bills can harm your fucking children. 'In some situations'. A billion things not technically considered 'abuse' can be passively 'harmful'.

    You have yet to make a case that there is any justification for the state to intervene and punish people for this inadvertent harm that makes ANY FUCKING SENSE.

    Child Abuse is already against the law. Incapacity can already be declared. You seem to be dancing around 'facts' and implying that some arbitrary standards can/should be considered that doesn't quite meet the case of either of the above.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Child Abuse is already against the law. "

    And I actually advocated a more stringent position against state interference under those laws you are pointing too. You are just flailing around splashing in the water at this point.

    "Not paying your fucking heating bills can harm your fucking children."

    Of course there are easily imaginable situations where not paying for heating would in my opinion warrant interference from the state to protect your children.

  • GILMORE||

    There may be situations where you ever make an argument and defend it, but I have yet to see it = instead you play your little rhetorical evasions and obfuscations and pat yourself on the back as though you said something of substance.

    There is already clearly defined child 'abuse'.

    There is clearly defined and legal reasons to delare someone incapable of parenting.

    You make claims that "situations" or "scenarios" or other vague non-terms "may" justify or necessitate interference by the state....

    None of which amounts to a point, an argument, anything. Its a bunch of fuzzy bullshit you hide behind to prevent having to make a point that is so easily shattered that your premise falls apart.

    What else DO you do? Nothing.

    I'm fucking sick of it, honestly.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You are projecting. You seem to acknowledge and point to 'child abuse laws' that justify intervention (hilariously you refer to our laws on that as 'clearly defined'). The criteria I have supplied is actually LESS deferential to the state than what you keep pointing to, and then you yell and curse like a drunken uncle about me not being specific enough, while not supplying any criteria of your own other than, again, 'child abuse laws.'

  • GILMORE||

    Aha! Touche! Riposte!

    You have supplied *zero* criteria other than reference to "easily imaginable scenarios" which continue to remain unstated for obvious reasons. You don't *do* actual 'substantiation of claims'.

    given your slimy penchant to attempt to evade specific statements and muddy all terms to meaninglessness, you may find work as public defense council. its somewhere where failure is celebrated and encouraged.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Are you so drunk you cannot read the specific examples I gave at 4:08 (over three hours ago?)? You quoted the sentence right before it, how did you miss them?

    Fluffy began this by saying what people do on their own property is their business. I agreed, but qualified it by saying that what people do to their children may not always be their business, though there should be deference to the parents.

    In response you have ranted and cursed and pointed to 'child abuse laws' but really stated no argument yourself. You seem to agree with me that some things parents do on their own property can warrant intervention (why else all this pointing to 'child abuse laws'), which was all my original point was. You're just flailing around out of some sad anger towards me.

  • GILMORE||

    Restatements! What another wonderful rhetorical gimmick. Let's try together!

    ""So, Bo, what you are saying is that there are "specific criteria" for defining exactly when Harm is being committed on a child by a parent; no one disputes this because no specific criteria are in fact ever described - just vague scenarios which have no over-riding principle clarified. You repeat yourself ad nauseum, referring back to these *unstated criteria* with the pretense that *something had actually been said*, when it had not. when pressed to be more specific, you have resorted repeatedly to claiming others have an absolutist position were "No" criteria exist. This pattern has repeated itself to the point where people just call you a tiresome twat."

    I suppose you could try again for the jury, though.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think you do not even know what you have been arguing here, much less what I am.

    All I have been saying throughout is that the defense 'I am doing it on my property' does not settle the matter when children are on that property. You seem to agree with me, and yet all this sound and fury from you, signifying nothing.

  • GILMORE||

    "All I have been saying throughout is that the defense 'I am doing it on my property' does not settle the matter when children are on that property"

    Bullshit.

    You have been saying,

    ""I know there are some parental actions that you would say intervention is warranted""

    AND

    "' there is someplace that pretty much anyone is going to draw the line and say a parent can not expose their children to something""

    Amazingly, despite your intuition that *these things exist* you have strangely been unable to cite one.

    But you can say you were trying to do something else now. Par for course.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    That is a question that, as I have said, should be answered with very strong deference to the parents.

    How about, if you can't be arrested for it, you can't have your children taken away for it?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    emotionally harmed is a big enough loop-hole for anyone to remove any kid.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except children aren't present by some miracle of divine intervention. They or their parents choose to be there. Business owners shouldn't be forced to pick up the slack for others' bad parenting.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    What is this, 1963?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Anywhere you have a choice to be, you also have the choice not to be, unless the government chooses for you. While second hand smoke is annoying, it is not the health hazard it is made out to be. This is merely the government pandering to what it perceives to be the preferences of the majority at the expense of the minority.

    Up next, farting in public.

    FTR, I hate cigarette smoke, it irritates the crap out of me and I don't miss it. Nothing more aggravating than sitting down to a nice sushi lunch and some asshole lights up next to you.

  • Sevo||

    "While second hand smoke is annoying"

    To some people. I like it as much as I do the smell of wood smoke from a camp fire.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I agree. I associate the smell of cigarette smoke with my uncle visiting. Happy memories.

  • ||

    My father was a heavy smoker. He'd smoke in the car with the windows closed in the middle of winter - including long drives from Montreal to Florida.

    This was, what, 27 to 30 years ago?

    We're all fine. But the walls in his smoking room was yellow. The original colour was off-white. My mother repainted it.

  • Ballz||

    I just farted. :)

  • Sevo||

    ...'Their homes always *have the fragrance* of smoke whether they are smoking or not.'...
    Fixed

    "I have suffered every minute around smokers as they polluted my immediate environment."
    Gee, seems you don't like certain smells. Me too, but guess what? That's tough shit.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I still don't want to be abused in public spaces with the very disgusting fumes and consequences of being around smoking.

    I believe you are free to choose not to frequent places you find offensive.

  • mtrueman||

    "I believe you are free to choose..."

    If children don't want to ride in smoke free cars, I believe they are free to buy their own cars...

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman screams:
    FOR THE CHILDRUUUNZ!
    How original, idjit.

  • mtrueman||

    What if the CHILDRUUUNZ someday got together and organized a strike under the slogan, 'FOR UUUS!' You wouldn't be a supporter, would you? You might even be a scab child.

  • wwhorton||

    Do smokers have the right to "choke you with their foul fumes?" I don't know, you seem to have the right to gag me with your prissy hand-wringing and aggressive self-victimization, so I think it's only fair.

    While we're at it, I probably find your cologne or personal odor offensive, in which case I'll require you to stand at least 30' away at all times. Thanks in advance.

  • ||

    Ugh. The place I'm contracting at now (a big Fortune 200 company) has their perfume policy printed on stickers and affixed to the mirrors in every bathroom. Even the men's crappers.

    So yes, the pearl clutchers are working hard on the perfume front as well.

  • GILMORE||

    THIS =

    What many people fail to appreciate is that when you start accepting the line of reasoning that, "Well, whether it causes real harm or NOT, consensus dictates that its completely unpleasant and so we should BAN!! X, Y or Z.. in public"?

    Once you go there, you've just opened the door to allow for the Nanny Of Everything.

    There is no right Not to Be Offended. There is no right to be "free" of the unpleasantness of Other People. there is no positive right to "protection from the foulness of existence". You have to deal with it, and you have to deal with people on their level. This means if you really *don't like* something, you need to actually do something about it yourself rather than expect the State to impose your notions of 'acceptability'

    BTW, re: your 'perfume'-policy company?

    I'd fucking totally not shower for a month. Just to see what happens.

  • ||

    What confront the person bothering me personally? Why when I can get my state-daddy to do it for me?

    I don't think I could not shower for two days without getting in trouble there, much less a month. I'm a contractor so it would be easy to bum rush me.

    The place is a huge monument to form over function. My last job was with all engineers and I wore shorts, t-shirts and my trusty xero sandals for six months straight. Now I am stuck having to dress up every day.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Your health is more at risk on a modern non-smoking flight that it used to be when smoking was allowed, because the airline now use LESS fresh air.

    Yes, tobacco smoke can be unpleasant. So can perfume, cooking odors, and loud music. When I see serious efforts to ban car stereos that threaten to turn the car windshield back into sand, I will be prepared to say that concerns about smoking in cars are not grossly overblown.

    The acceptance of grossly overblown, not to say fraudulent, 'evidence' against 'secondhand smoke' has opened us up to the parade of anti-science restrictions and bans that ads sorted nuts visit on us today.

    OK, you don't like the smell of tobacco smoke. Deal. With. It.

  • Fluffy||

    It's important to remember that if major public figures and scientific authorities are willing to blatantly mislead and put their thumb on the scale on this issue, and they can justify it to themselves based "larger issues", then it's reasonable to conclude that they will do the same thing on every other issue requiring the presentation of scientific facts to the public.

    One lie = a liar.

  • PS in CT||

    You won't catch this bunch coming after the perils of marijuana smoke, I'll bet.

  • Wind Rider||

    Oh, they will.

  • ||

    That's ok, we'll have vaporizers and I'm sure they'll leave those alone...

  • Marc St. Stephen||

    You sure? NYC and Chicago, to name a few places, just banned vaporizers in "public" with or without nicotine - what makes you think they'll leave them alone with THC?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Check sarcasm detector for malfunction.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The already are, see the mayor of Denver Democrat Michael Hancock:

    http://www.denverpost.com/ci_2.....ot-smoking

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I would probably watch the Olympic downhill coverage, if I could find out when it is scheduled to be on, and if it was shown as a discrete event, instead of being randomly sliced and diced into a bunch of other useless shit I do not care about.

    I fucking hate the Olympics.

  • ||

    The way U.S. networks show it.

    I have to say, the coverage is pretty good up here.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I appreciate calling out scaremongers for their exaggerations, but it seems the upshot of this article is that according to "One of the key studies cited" (what about the implied others?) smoking in a car creates conditions similar to double that of a smoky bar. I imagine most people would think having your kids hang out in a smoky bar is not ideal parenting.

  • ||

    I was very disappointed that this article was more about rhetoric than an actual point by point dismantling of the myths behind second-hand smoke. It basically cites one meta study and then points out a bunch of inconsistencies in an argument made in the UK. Pretty weak tea.

  • GILMORE||

    "'
    I imagine most people would think having your kids hang out in a smoky bar is not ideal parenting.""

    Again, douchebag seems to think rhetoric amounts to a legalistic argument.

    Guess what = being POOR sometimes amounts to 'less than ideal parenting'. MILLIONS of conditions might result in 'less than ideal' parenting, be they choices a person makes or simply conditions under which they live which they have little control over. None of which provides ANY legal justification for the state to intervene and punish someone for the mere fact of this condition, or to justify acting in loco parentis and be required to then provide "Something better".

    because as much as idiots like you might spout horseshit sob stories like this, you utterly fail to follow your own idiocy to any logical conclusion, which is = if you're going to impose a punishment regime for 'bad parents', then what steps are you taking to then ameliorate the situation - or do you just let the children *suffer worse* now that papa and mommy are in the clinker for smoking in the car?

    please stop with the hyper-stupid, and either make an argument that makes sense, or please shut the fuck up, because all you're doing is grief trolling at this point.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I like how you accuse me of being too vague with no concrete examples while at the same time accuse me of spouting 'sob stories.'

    Are you drunk by any chance? The flailing around, heightened anger and your steadily descending grammar and punctuation suggest it.

    "None of which provides ANY legal justification for the state to intervene and punish someone for the mere fact of this condition, or to justify acting in loco parentis "

    So instances of less than ideal parenting which involve, say, physical harm to children, which is what proponents of the debated measures contend is going on, do not justify any of that? Or are you just splashing around again?

  • GILMORE||

    "'Are you drunk by any chance? The flailing around, heightened anger and your steadily descending grammar and punctuation suggest it."

    Reductio ad Sobriety. You are just chock full of *classy*

    Sorry, the rhetorical question asking game is over bud. you want to make a case, state it, but the endless?????? and pretending you're *saying something* is over.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "You are just chock full of *classy*"

    Says the man who initiated the exchange with me with profanity and insults, in flagrant disregard for the conditions our host places on our participation here.

  • GILMORE||

    "Appeal to propriety!"

    Please do huff and stamp off in righteous indignation feeling like you have a moral victory. PLEASE.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Appeal to propriety!"

    From the same guy who just whined "You are just chock full of *classy*"

    Wow, you are lacking pretty much all self awareness tonight.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Here's a hint, Bo. The reason most people wouldn't approve of their kids hanging out in a smoky bar has nothing to do with the smoke.

  • Cloudbuster||

    "It's important to remember that if major public figures and scientific authorities are willing to blatantly mislead and put their thumb on the scale on this issue, and they can justify it to themselves based "larger issues", then it's reasonable to conclude that they will do the same thing on every other issue requiring the presentation of scientific facts to the public."

    Heh, why qualify it with "issue requiring the presentation of scientific facts to the public?"

    We are governed by incorrigible, shameless liars, and they don't restrict their lies to scientific topics.

    You have to assume that anything that comes out of their mouths is a lie.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!?1

  • Sevo||

    You noticed that too.
    Let's see, it's pretty much harmless, but FOW THE CHILLUNZ!

  • Ted S.||

    I am thinking of the children. That's why I deliberately blow smoke in their faces.

  • 4schitzngrins||

    If you want to smoke, you should be able to, but only so long as it does not infringe on others. I could care less about the health implications of smoking, but the simple fact of the matter is that one does not smoke in a vacuum. Smokers cannot violate other's personal space & indignantly claim they're exercising their "rights" & not bothering anyone.

    When you smoke, you have a very real & very tangible effect those around you--there is no getting away from that fact. TDHawkes lays out many of them above--they are very real effects that smokers have on non-smokers, & their "right to smoke" & any legitimacy of their position goes up in smoke when they infringe on the rights of non-smokers to go about my life unmolested by smoker's choices. As they say, "a non-smoking section is the same thing as a non-peeing section in a pool."

    As a non-smoker in a family of smokers I know that I cannot tell my family members not to smoke in their homes, or that they cannot go to a place that allows smoking, but then they wonder why I never come around, or only stay for a few hours when I do. & non-smokers should not be allowed to force business owners to exclude smokers, or install special equipment (which is expensive & largely ineffective) to accommodate non-smokers, but business owners know that by allowing smokers they are excluding a large number of potential patrons. Everyone should be free to make those trade-offs.

  • wareagle||

    jesus, man; end your family's wondering and tell them that you don't come around because you don't like the smoke. Maybe they'll make an effort to change around and maybe they won't. But if simply whine on boards like this, the objects of your concern will carry on as normal.

  • wwhorton||

    Well, by forbidding smoking they alienate another group of patrons. The vast majority of people aren't bothered especially by smoking, in my experience at least.

    Here's the thing: while I agree in principle with what you're saying vis a vis smoking not trumping the right of someone else not to be around smoke, I would point out that that sort of intolerance doesn't bode well for any "public" places. Firstly, I don't have a right to go to your house and blow smoke in your face, but you can't use your little preference bubble to drive smokers out of public places. That would be like my using an intense dislike of whistling to follow you around and force you to be silent.

    Smokers have compromised with militant anti-smokers for decades, but those folks won't be happy until their preferences are law. Well, go fuck yourselves, you sorry, pathetic, Nancy-boy, limp-wristed Nazi scumbags. You don't have a right to not smell things you don't like in public spaces or businesses, asshat.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I find myself largely in agreement here. The fact of the matter is that smokers have made a great many accommodations to anti-smokers. And every accommodation has been greeted with louder and more vociferous demands for more. Even when I'm forced to stand out on the sidewalk in the dead of winter to have a cigarette, I'm occasionally given the fake cough and hand waving in front of the face treatment. And, honestly, I'm pretty sure the smell isn't the issue (they're ten feet away in the open air). It's that they don't like my smoking and want to express their disapproval. And that's the thing. I've actually gone to the point of refraining from smoking to try to get along with these people at different times. What I've realized is that it isn't just the smoking. These bastards wind up the types who want to dictate EVERY part of your life.

  • Russell||

    As if the main article up at the K through 12 Science Daily weren't sufficiently hysterical , here's the sidebar

    Second-Hand Smoke Increases Risk of Invasive Meningococcal Disease in Children
    Dec. 10, 2012 — The dangers of second-hand smoke (passive smoking) on children continue to become ever more apparent. A new study shows that second hand smoke and fetal exposure due to maternal smoking while ... full story

    Second-Hand Smoking Damages Memory
    Sep. 11, 2012 — Non-smokers who live with or spend time with smokers are damaging their memory, according to new ... full story
    Second-Hand Smoke Increases Risk of Invasive Meningococcal Disease in Children
    Dec. 7, 2010 — Children exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to get invasive meningococcal disease than children who are not ... full story

    Smokers at Risk from Their Own 'Second-Hand' Smoke
    Jan. 29, 2010 — It is well known that smokers damage their health by directly inhaling cigarette smoke. Now, research has shown that they are at additional risk from breathing environmental tobacco smoke, contrary ... full story

    Growing Evidence Of Marijuana Smoke's Potential Dangers
    Aug. 5, 2009 — In a finding that challenges the increasingly popular belief that smoking marijuana is less harmful to health than smoking tobacco, researchers in Canada are reporting that smoking marijuana, like ... full story
    more related stories

  • fredtyg||

    David Friedman (Milton Friedman's son) takes a look at some second hand smoke claims and pretty much debunks at least one figure widely touted: that second hand smoke kills something like 50,000 people a year.
    http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.....hand+smoke

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    There is no social concern that can't be alleviated by the proper application of state-threatened violence in the form of law.

    Also, there are never any tradeoffs involved in threatening or actually using coercion against individual who are engaging in behaviors that many of us find nasty, whether the state is going after dirty homos or people who smoke around children.

  • Beezard||

    I remember years ago the Maryland health authorities claimed 1000 people a year died of 2nd hand smoke complications while the federal claimed 3000. So maryland deaths accounted for a third of all passive smoke related deaths. Almost makes you think that there's no actual example of someone dying from 2nd hand smoke and they're just pulling numbers out of estimates of risk that they've concocted out of thin air or something.

    Anyway, the e-cig bans prove what it was all really about.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Yup. It isn't second-hand smoke. It's controlling other people.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Anyway, the e-cig bans prove what it was all really about.

    But studies show, and experts believe, if some delicate and impressionable little child sees somebody do something which "looks like" smoking, that child will become a heroin addict. Society cannot allow the children to become heroin addicts!

    BAN E-CIGS NOW!

  • Response||

    Smoking should be limited to designated public areas - in your own home you do whatever. But if someone wants to believe that secondhand smoke is not harmful, then please let them puff smoke into their newborn child's face for an hour at a time. The point is that if they aren't willing to do that to their baby then what gives them the moral right to spread smoke elsewhere?

    My parents were smokers - I grew up in a house filled with smoke. But I didn't feel the effects until adulthood. First when I was in college yet still living at home to cover costs, classmates would come up to me and start asking if I smoked because they could smell it on my clothes. Having lived my life surrounded by smoke, I hadn't known that people were avoiding me due to my smelling of smoke. In grade/high school, kids just kept in quite. After I graduated and left home, returning to my parents house started to become an ordeal. I would immediately start getting headaches as soon as I entered a smokey room. After I got married, I've only visited my parents place once in 12 years. Smoking is more than a disease - it's a foul gas that embeds where ever it goes. As a child, I didn't have a choice other than running away from home. So I have some sympathy for people who want to outlaw smoking in homes with kids - but I would not require it.

    But if someone wants to smoke in front of me or my family in a public area then they are doing harm to me and I will take appropriate actions.

  • Sevo||

    Response|2.9.14 @ 1:43PM|#
    ..."But if someone wants to believe that secondhand smoke is not harmful, then please let them puff smoke into their newborn child's face for an hour at a time"...

    Wrong handle.
    Imbecile is much better.

  • Response||

    name calling... really? At least provide an argument or something to this specific references.

  • Sevo||

    Response|2.9.14 @ 3:16PM|#
    "name calling... really?"

    You bet, asshole!

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and:
    "But if someone wants to smoke in front of me or my family in a public area then they are doing harm to me and I will take appropriate actions."

    So a lie is sufficient for you to threaten harm?
    What a miserable excuse for humanity you are.

  • wwhorton||

    I dislike fat and ugly people, and I have a right not to have to look at them in public places. Let me use my personal preferences as a weapon to take over public spaces and infringe on the rights of others. For the children.

  • GILMORE||

    "Response|2.9.14 @ 1:43PM|#

    SmokingJews should be limited to designated public areas "

    "...I don't care if you say science tells you they aren't offensive or destructive to society = I FEEL THAT THEY ARE, therefore, we NEED A LAW."

    See, logic!

  • Response||

    Shooting guns in public should be limited to designated public areas. Logic.

  • Sevo||

    Response|2.9.14 @ 3:14PM|#
    "Shooting guns in public should be limited to designated public areas. Logic"

    Your stupidity should be banned from teh innertubez.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    How about farting?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am not sure the two are comparable. How long does it take the average person to smoke a cigarette vs. how long the average person can pass gas? Also, at least some amount of passing gas is less of a choice than smoking.

    At the end of the day while I do not think it is some major crisis and that it is morally obscene for the state to prohibit smoking on private property (including so called 'places of public accommodation') I think in truly public places smoking bans could be justified by the 'your rights end where my nose begins.'

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Is it a habit?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    What does "how long" have to do with it? The question is... do you have the right to not be offended by smells?

    Think about where that rabbit hole takes you (perfume, BO, flowers, hairspray, tunafish sandwiches...).

    You need to show harm, and that's why the issue of secondhand smoke was "invented"...to show harm so they could justify eliminating odors they don't like.

    This ENTIRE article is examining that premise. Is it really harmful or are the "I don't like smoke smell people" making shit up to get their way?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "What does "how long" have to do with it?"

    How long something goes on strikes me as a factor in asking whether it should be tolerated or not, no? For example, if a person were to stumble off the sidewalk into our yards for a few seconds it would seem uncommonly silly for you to initiate an action against trespass, but if the same person lay down for a few hours it would not.

    "You need to show harm"

    Does it have to be physical? Are you, for example, against things like light and noise nuisance actions?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    if a person were to stumble off the sidewalk into our yards for a few seconds it would seem uncommonly silly for you to initiate an action against trespass, but if the same person lay down for a few hours it would not.

    Regardless of what "strikes you as silly", that would be up to the property owner to decide. Both are trespass.

    Are you, for example, against things like light and noise nuisance actions?

    Yes, where I can choose to remove myself from the offensive situation. If it's affecting me on my property, rights are in conflict and it's a matter for courts to decide which rights take precedence.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So wait, you are arguing that it is outrageous to get the state involved for someone breathing particulates on me but just fine when someone trips onto my property for a second?

    "Yes, where I can choose to remove myself from the offensive situation."

    So if I decided to, say, walk beside you shining a flashlight in your eyes for a half an hour, everything OK? How about just shine it in your face while you sit at a restaurant?

  • Sevo||

    "So if I decided to, say, walk beside you shining a flashlight in your eyes for a half an hour, everything OK? How about just shine it in your face while you sit at a restaurant?"

    Bo. you often make a complete ass of yourself, like you did right here.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If you are getting at something, get at it.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    So wait, you are arguing that it is outrageous to get the state involved for someone breathing particulates on me but just fine when someone trips onto my property for a second?

    Yes.

    So if I decided to, say, walk beside you shining a flashlight in your eyes for a half an hour, everything OK? How about just shine it in your face while you sit at a restaurant?

    If I turn away and you follow, your intent is to annoy me. In which case you'll be informed that if you continue to follow me with the intent to annoy me you will be punched in the face. If you subsequently continue, you WILL be punched in the face in complete compliance with the NAP.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think it pretty incredible that you find an unintentional momentary intrusion onto your property to warrant state interference but my suggesting that someone's continued breathing of particulates thought to be cancerous onto my person does not, and somehow I am the statist here.

    As to your second paragraph, does a person who continues to smoke around someone who asks them to stop deserve a punch in the face? What if someone intentionally breathes their smoke in your direction?

    And how would punching someone in the face for intentionally shining a light at you be in complete compliance with the NAP?

  • GILMORE||

    ????
    HHM????

    ??
    I am aghast!
    ?????

    ???
    THUS RIDDLED THE RIDDLER

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Slow breaths, Gilmore, slow breaths.

    You're going to get through this.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I think it pretty incredible that you find an unintentional momentary intrusion onto your property to warrant state interference but my suggesting that someone's continued breathing of particulates thought to be cancerous onto my person does not, and somehow I am the statist here.

    Yes, you are. Apples and Oranges.

    Apple-I have a right to enjoy my property as I see fit, you have no right to my property unless I grant you permission.

    Orange- You have no right to NOT be annoyed when you can simply remove yourself from the situation.

    As to your second paragraph, does a person who continues to smoke around someone who asks them to stop deserve a punch in the face?

    If you walk away and they follow you with the intent of perpetuating the action you are trying to escape. Yes.

    What if someone intentionally breathes their smoke in your direction?

    Move.

    And how would punching someone in the face for intentionally shining a light at you be in complete compliance with the NAP?

    I did not say that, now, did I? You don't fucking listen/read very well do you?

    It becomes an initiation of force after you attempt to remove yourself and they follow with the intent to fuck with you.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Your Apple and Orange explanation seems to place less value on your actual self-as-property than your real property, but more to the point it seems to support state intervention in areas most people would rightly find far less intrusive and significant than what I am talking about.

    "What if someone intentionally breathes their smoke in your direction?

    Move."

    Under what principle should the person who is the recipient of particulates spewed out from another onto their person have to move?

    "It becomes an initiation of force "

    I do not see how shining a light can be an 'initiation of force.'

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Your Apple and Orange explanation seems to place less value on your actual self-as-property than your real property

    Bullshit. You are assuming second hand smoke causes harm. The point of the article is that such harm has not been established. Therefore you are claiming you have a right to be free from other's particulates (farts and perfume).

    but more to the point it seems to support state intervention in areas most people would rightly find far less intrusive and significant than what I am talking about.

    Again bullshit. It allows the property owner rather than the state to decide if the infraction is worthy of state interference.

    Under what principle should the person who is the recipient of particulates spewed out from another onto their person have to move?

    Under the principle that you may do as you wish provided you do not infringe upon the rights of others. You have no right to not smell me. If you don't like how I smell fucking move. You might not like watching me pick my ass in public either. Solution: Don't fucking look.

    I do not see how shining a light can be an 'initiation of force.

    Then you are a fucking idiot. It's not the shining of the light, it's is the following me with the intention of annoying me that is the initiation of force. FOR THE THIRD FUCKING TIME!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    How is following someone with the intention of annoying someone an 'initiation of force?' By that reasoning Trayvon might well have been justified to resist Zimmerman's 'initiation of force!'

    "You have no right to not smell me."

    You misunderstand me, my position does not rest on smoking being something offensive as it involves the intentional physical intrusion onto the person of another.

    "It allows the property owner rather than the state to decide if the infraction is worthy of state interference."

    It allows the property owner to invoke the coercive arm of the state, for a momentary, unintentional stumble. That strikes me as worse 'SLAVER!' talk to me.

    "Therefore you are claiming you have a right to be free from other's particulates (farts and perfume)."

    Perfume is not intentionally exhaled onto other people, and farts are often unintentional, so Apples and Oranges. For example, if someone were to sit beside you and spray perfume in your general direction then I think that person has violated your rights. That strikes me as analogous to smoking.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Okay, we are done, Blue Tulpa.

    Perhaps we'll debate again sometime when you grow the fuck up.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    With all due respect Francisco, in our discussion above you laid into me with insults and the SLAVER all caps talk and then conceded my point. If anyone needs to grow up, perhaps you will see that person in your mirror.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    But if someone wants to smoke in front of me or my family in a public area then they are doing harm to me and I will take appropriate actions.

    Fucking drama queen.

  • wwhorton||

    This guy's such a pussy. Typically, he wants to use the force of the state to substitute for his own lack of stones.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Having lived my life surrounded by smoke, I hadn't known that people were avoiding me due to my smelling of smoke. In grade/high school, kids just kept in quite.

    Has it ever occurred to you that your classmates avoided you because you're a self-righteous asshole who would want to dictate habits to the people who raised you?

  • fredtyg||

    I have a slightly different take on the fear mongering about second hand smoke and smoking than the author does. It's mostly a couple things:

    First, the whole anti- smoking thing and being part of that "movement" gives people a sense of self righteousness. They can scream and act disgusted about smoking, the tobacco companies...and second hand smoke. Besides, there will be few around to tell them they aren't self righteous.

    Hey! They care. Aren't they great? We all have this common enemy of smokers and the enabling tobacco companies.

    Second, I think there's a bit of the bully thing in it, too. Like a group of kids that enjoy in beating up on the small kid that can't fight back. They see a minority being picked on, and enjoy getting into the fray since they know no harm can come to them.

    Add to that the airhead we- need- no- do- something attitude toward any problems in the world, real or imagined, and you have a dangerous situation indeed. Smoking rates continue to decline. Who, or what, do you think these same people will attack when there's essentially no tobacco smokers around anymore?

  • Sevo||

    ..."Who, or what, do you think these same people will attack when there's essentially no tobacco smokers around anymore?"

    No need to wait; sugar, meat, plastic bags, etc.

  • Pulseguy||

    The simple rule is this: Pretty much everything you're told is a lie. The more authoritative, the more likely it is a lie, and a big one at that. If they back it up with science, and if it merges with politics, there is not a chance in the world it is true in any meaningful way.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yep.

  • Ymmarta||

    Perhaps Mr. O'Neill should spend a day with an asthmatic person hospitalized because of smoke in public places. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face, when it becomes a violation of the non-aggression principle.

  • GILMORE||

    No kidding!!

    Also, I'm allergic to fucking PEANUTS. So, people eating peanuts in public? WHAT THE FUCK?! That shit needs to be restricted to Hermetically Sealed Thai Restaurants. because PUBLIC means everyone needs to adapt to the most adversely affected by any random atmospheric element. SEE?

  • Ymmarta||

    When you go outside, are people throwing peanuts at you? If not, apples and oranges.

  • wareagle||

    are you chained to your spot in places where others smoke? Last I checked, it was legal no matter how noxious I find it to be. However, I have the right and the ability to find spots where no one is smoking.

  • GILMORE||

    YES, I AM ALSO ALLERGIC TO APPLES AND ORANGES, WHICH IS WHY THEY NEED TO BE WRAPPED IN PLASTIC WHEN IN PUBLIC.

    The point, dumb-ass, is that we don't make rules for 'public behavior' based on the fucking random health risks of a tiny sliver of the population who might suffer from conditions that are triggered by environmental exposure to X, Y, or Z. ITS THEIR FUCKING PROBLEM. So maybe your nephew needs to stop hanging out in smoky nightclubs.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Eating peanuts=exhaling smoke in terms of your right to swing your fist ends at my face.

    Brilliant, Gilmore.

  • GILMORE||

    ALSO BEES.

    Bees can fucking kill me!? Whats the deal with these "pro=bees" people saying that the State SHOULDNT spray bee-killing poison all over any public space? DO YOU WANT ME TO DIE, YOU HEARTLESS SCUM!?

  • Sevo||

    Ymmarta|2.9.14 @ 2:14PM|#
    "Perhaps Mr. O'Neill should spend a day with an asthmatic person hospitalized because of smoke in public places"

    Perhaps Ymmarta should quit telling lies.

  • Acosmist||

    Find a single such person first.

  • Ymmarta||

    My nephew, for starters.

  • Sevo||

    Ymmarta|2.9.14 @ 3:04PM|#
    "My nephew, for starters."

    Natch. And I'm sure you got your diseases from eating chemicals.

  • wareagle||

    in what public place is your nephew surrounded by smokers? It's already banned in most public places so unless you have found liber-somalia-topia, I'm going to call bullshit.

  • mtrueman||

    "It's already banned in most public places"

    So it's banned. Is it inconceivable that someone may smoke there anyway? Not in America but maybe in the wilds of Africa? You're calling ymmarta a liar on the strength of that?

  • Acosmist||

    It would be easier just to say "you caught me, I got nothing" rather than invent a nephew who can be hospitalized by being in the same atmosphere as smoke.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    Sounds like we agree that there shouldn't be any public places.

    Private property, private rules.

  • mtrueman||

    "Private property, private rules."

    Unless you're a child. Then it's parent's property, parent's rules.

  • Sevo||

    Oh NOOOOOOOOOOO!
    FOR THE CHILDRUUUUNZ!
    Stuff it.

  • mtrueman||

    Weird. I always thought that Libertarians based their ethics on the honouring of contracts freely entered into by parties that enjoy equal standing before the law. Yet children are the only class of people in society that are systematically exluded from entering into legally binding contracts.

    Is it this weakness in children that makes libertarians treat them with such contempt? Everyone likes to kick a man (even better a child) when he's down.

    Libertarianism ain't going nowhere until it can overcome this smugness, cheap jack cynicism and spite.

  • wwhorton||

    Yeah, but that doesn't give you the right to run face-first into my fist so that you can ban fists, you pathetic statist fuck.

  • anarch||

    "It's a pseudoscientific allegory for our highly suspicious era in which we’re all expected, encouraged in fact, to see our fellow citizens, our work colleagues and even our own parents as toxic creatures whose very breath and touch might harm us." ~ Woody Allen

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    You're quoting Woody Allen? Don't you know his movies aren't entertaining?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I've always questioned second hand smoke claims based upon simple physics.

    If 1/6 smokers dies from smoking related illness after inhaling the fully concentrated smoke directly into their lungs, how many will become ill after that same amount of smoke is diluted into thousands of cubic feet of air?

  • ||

    For me, it's simple; perhaps naive.

    Not all lung cancer cases are related to smoke and people have lived long lives despite smoking.

    Right there there's enough holes in their evidence.

    Fun story. Someone I know was close to the Montreal Canadiens during their dominance in the 1970s. He told me a story of when he was in the locker room during the playoffs. He described a world of pure anarchy. Guys eating pizza, while Guy Lafleur sat puffing away.

    This team won four straight cups and earned the reputation as being probably the greatest dynasty in hockey history. And they didn't drink Gatorade, work out and smoked.

    Go figure.

  • ||

    sorry for the awkward writing. Listening to music.

  • Sevo||

    "If 1/6 smokers dies from smoking related illness after inhaling the fully concentrated smoke directly into their lungs, how many will become ill after that same amount of smoke is diluted into thousands of cubic feet of air?"

    Add that most people who do suffer illnesses from smoking have dosed themselves 20 or more times a day, for years.
    This is not a potent toxin.

  • thinkaboutit||

    Are we going to really sit here and decide if the second hand smoke is actually causing harm or not? Or someones right to smoke here or there? Look simple fact is that smoke travels all over it does not stay contained at all. What about the individuals right to breathe clean air? I do not wish to smell that venom.. I live in an apartment and have a neighbor that is all the way in the front units as I am in the rear units (quite a distance away) and EVERY single time he lights up (every 15-20 minutes)we are forced to smell that obnoxious sh*t stick. In the summer with the AC going it is worse being pulled in to our apartment at a higher rate of stench. We had visitors that thought we smoked due to the stink in the apartment. So tell me how is it someones right to pollute and stink up another's home or property? That stink does not stay contained to the smokers property or space. On the public roads I can smell a cig 5 cars ahead on the highway at 65 MPH..it's craziness and disgusting to a point that it puts me in a foul mood.

  • ||

    Think about your assertion to its logical end and get back to me.

    I agree that smoke is foul but I'm not at the stage your at because it's not a road I want to embark upon.

  • Nooge.||

    On the public roads I can smell a cig 5 cars ahead on the highway at 65 MPH.

    Your neurotic fever dreams do not count as objective reality.

  • ||

    His mother was a drug sniffing dog and his father smelled of pig.

    Don't blame him for his freakish ability to smell contraband, it is in his genes.

  • Nooge.||

    On the public roads I can smell a cig 5 cars ahead on the highway at 65 MPH.

    Your neurotic fever dreams do not count as objective reality.

  • Nooge.||

    On the public roads I can smell a cig 5 cars ahead on the highway at 65 MPH.

    Your neurotic fever dreams do not count as objective reality.

  • Nooge.||

    Okay, HnR squirrels, I have no idea what the fuck that is about. I typed once, clicked submit once, and waited for like five minutes for it to go through. But thanks for the triplicate, I guess.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    3@3. No one is immune.

    There is some sort of update or backup at 3PM EST and 11PM EST.

  • Nooge.||

    3@3. No one is immune.

    I'd feel better if I'd posted a funnier comment. But I'm glad it's not something on my end.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Are you sure you didn't hit submit more than once? I've had it hang up @ 3PM, but I've never gotten more than one post unless I hit submit more than once.

  • Nooge.||

    Positive. I let it spin until it was done. But I did reload the page once when the preview button didn't work. I'm guessing that angered the squirrels.

  • oncogenesis||

    On the public roads I can smell a cig 5 cars ahead on the highway at 65 MPH

    Liar.

  • Sevo||

    ..."What about the individuals right to breathe clean air?"...

    Yeah, what about that?

  • Sevo||

    ..."it's craziness and disgusting to a point that it puts me in a foul mood."

    Ya know what puts me in a foul mood? Self-righteous assholes who'll use the power of the government to impose their supposed morality.
    Like, oh, thinkaboutit.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    DO YOU WANT ME TO DIE, YOU HEARTLESS SCUM!?

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

  • Mama Bear||

    I disagree with this one. This article was apparently written by a tobacco addict, trying to rationalize their habit. It's mostly bullshit. We have mild asthma and sinus problems get sick very quickly from second hand smoke, and the bottom line is, we're not really interested in breathing your drugs. We don't think drugs should be illegal but we also don't think we should have to breathe yours. One of us wound up in the hospital, in critical condition, years ago, from smokers at work back then. No thanks. And smoking around kids has been found to cause impaired lung function later in life, it's child abuse.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    If there's anything that demonstrates empirical truth, it's a series of anecdotes.

    Years ago, I knew a Methodist who smoked cigars his whole life and wound up with lung cancer. I've been fighting to outlaw Wesleyism ever since.

  • Nooge.||

    If there's anything that demonstrates empirical truth, it's a series of anecdotes.

    but but but SCIENCE!

    Try being an NP arguing this topic from the property rights angle. A group of nurses in my area are attempting to ban smoking in "public" places, like privately owned bars, clubs, and restaurants. This is a relatively pro-business and pro-property rights area, but nurses are powerful voices, and I'm the only professional arguing against the ban.

    My assertions that employees and patrons of smoking-allowed establishments are free to go elsewhere have earned comparisons of my character to Hitler.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    In fairness to your coworkers, Hitler was a noted advocate of property rights and self ownership, so I can certainly see where they're coming from.

    The frightening thing is that we have to share the world with people who lack even a fundamental grounding in how economies and peaceful coexistence are possible.

  • ||

    Have they trotted out the canard that once a smoking ban goes into place more people will come out to bars and restaurants? You know those people who stay home because they hate smoky places.

    They did that here in Minneapolis, then when they finally passed their city ordinance banning smoking in bars business plunged in all the city bars. The solution? We need to pass a statewide ban. Then those treasonous bastards wouldn't be able to go to suburban bars where they could still smoke.

    The mythical non-smoking customers never did appear.

  • mplspolitics||

    Yeah, that was and remains nonsense. I think the St Paul law they had where you could allow smoking so long as your liquor sales were 51% or more o your sales was at least a fair compromise.

    I'm absolutely shocked that Dayton threatened to veto the ecig ban on private property when the house and senate had to reconcile their bills.

    He's a nanny motherfucker through and through.

  • sarcasmic||

    Many years ago I worked at a non-smoking restaurant back in the days when restaurant owners still had a choice.
    Well, the city passed a ban on smoking.
    The snobby customers of the non-smoking restaurant were given the freedom to go to any restaurant without having to be disgusted by those vile smokers. My employer closed it's doors within a couple months.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The food was that crappy?

  • Nooge.||

    You know what's also been found to decrease lung function? Living in Delhi.

    BAN INDIA!

  • SweatingGin||

    The royal "we" and the condescending "tobacco addict" accusation really ups the obnoxiousness of this one, but the pleading of helplessness doesn't add much. 6/10.

  • wwhorton||

    I'll see your anecdote and raise you my having been raised by smoking parents in a smoking household and having smoked much of my life. Clean bill of health, and, ironically, at my last check-up my doctor remarked that I had impressive lung capacity.

  • Ymmarta||

    Secondhand smoke exposure increases odds of hospital asthma readmission for children

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....090637.htm

  • Nooge.||

    How much smoke, for how long, at what age, in what concentration, in how many cases, in what population, controlled for what variables, in how large a sample, relative to admissions for other causes?

  • Sevo||

    Yeah, these studies show up on a regular basis and people shout and scream and then someone with out the grant at risk shows how they sort of fudged the data.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    demonstrated a readmission risk in children exposed to secondhand smoke more than twice that of children not exposed.

    That tells me nothing without knowing how many were readmitted. Was it 50 v 100 out of the 619 studied or 1 v 2?

    Twice nothing is still nothing.

  • wareagle||

    because all kids are asthmatic. And just where are these kids hanging out that smoke is a problem?

  • GILMORE||

    Sucks to your ass-mar

  • Killaz||

    HT to Robert Wenzel. This is just an insanely unconstitutional ordinance.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....right-now/

    The city of Junipero has a problem. Some of its citizens are starving, even as others gorge themselves on 28-course tasting menus. Food inequality has become a visible and painful symbol of class conflict. Activists accuse Junipero's foodies of snatching food from their neighbors' mouths. Some of the foodies have turned defensive, complaining aloud that people who forgot to pack a lunch are jealous of those who remembered.

    How could it have come to this in such a great American city? Ten years ago, Junipero passed an anti-hunger ordinance limiting the total number of meals served in the city each day. The goals were many, but they included reducing food waste, preventing wild swings in the supply of food, promoting home-cooked dishes over bulk processed junk, and fighting obesity by keeping compulsive eaters from downing 12 meals in a day.
  • SweatingGin||

    fable

    fable

    There is no city of Junipero.

    It's a good fable, though.

  • Sevo||

    Sounded too far off for even CA to have attempted it.
    But see the trolls above; there are those who are more than willing.

  • Killaz||

    That does clear things up. Cancel that doctor's appointment to adjust the crazy pills prescription.

  • Almanian!||

    The utter lack of self awareness (and knowledge of markets and reality) in the comments is breathtaking.

    Downpuppywrote:
    2/7/2014 4:15 PM EST This fable wins the Dummest Thing I Red 2Day non-prize.

    Analogies are usually attempts to confuse, but this one just leaves me gaping at its lameness. Is there anywhere, ever, that behaved remotely like Junipero?

    No. No place EVER. Esp. not where you are RIGHT NOW!

    THE CALLS ARE COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!11!!

  • Jerms||

    My mom is a smoker. About a pack a day for 40 years. She lives in another state and she is a picture of health. Unfortunately my wife and I have gotten cancer just from speaking to her on the phone. Off the walls and curtains, through the wires and into our lungs. My kids are asthmatic and I just found out that the unborn child in my wifes womb has whooping cough at only 8 weeks old.

  • Jerms||

    My mom is a smoker. About a pack a day for 40 years. She lives in another state and she is a picture of health. Unfortunately my wife and I have gotten cancer just from speaking to her on the phone. Off the walls and curtains, through the wires and into our lungs. My kids are asthmatic and I just found out that the unborn child in my wifes womb has whooping cough at only 8 weeks old.

  • wwhorton||

    Can we please agree to stop using the term "second-hand smoke" and just call it what it is: smoke? It's just smoke. It was smoke when it went into your lungs, and it's still smoke when it comes out. "Second-hand smoke" is a magical term invented by nanny-staters. I refuse to cede ground by using their made-up terminology.

  • ||

    Gotcha. Second hand smoke becomes smoke. What about 3rd hand smoke? Does that move up to second hand smoke? Or is there some new term?

    By the way, I'm going to coin a term 4th hand smoke. That is when your clothes and stuff are cleaned next to someone who has clothes saturated with 3rd hand smoke.

    I'd like a large grant to study this silent killer. I GAY-RON-TEE that I will come up with alarming statistics that will allow our children's children to continue this fight against the scourge of smokers.

  • Cantiloper@gmail.com||

    Pope, you think you're joking when you say, "I'd like a large grant to study this silent killer. I GAY-RON-TEE that I will come up with alarming statistics"

    But it's no joke. The wording is a LITTLE more subtle, but not much. Here's some typical grant wording taken from a grant proposal that got a half million dollar grant to prove that bars wouldn't be hurt by smoking bans:

    "We believe that this research will provide public health officials and tobacco control advocates with information that can help shape adop-tion and implementation of CIA [Clean Indoor Air] policies, and prevent their repeal [and] contribute to MPAAT’s overall mission by providing information that enables adoption and successful implementation of policies to protect employees and the general public from secondhand smoke exposure." See:

    http://tinyurl.com/KleinStudyGrant

    Not so much different from your GAY-RON-TEE, eh? Except Klein et al got a half million dollars for their efforts and managed to hide the decimation of bar employment after a ban by lumping it in with restaurant employment. Clever, but no cigar once the grant proposal is examined. I found that sort of thing over and over again while doing research for "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame." There's one golden ring out there right now that's offering close to four million dollars for research proving that thirdhand smoke and cigarette butts are the biggest threats to planet earth since the dinosaur killer asteroid!

    - MJM

  • Cantiloper@gmail.com||

    WWhorton: you are completely correct. When I wrote "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" a number of years ago I did my best to consistently refer to it as "secondary smoke" instead. If you examine the historical discussions of the Antismokers you will find that they didn't like the term ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) because they felt it was too "sanitary" and was "a Big Tobacco term." They consciously pushed the use of "secondhand" smoke in order to give the impression of smokers forcing a waste product that's been used and cast off on nonsmokers.

    - MJM

  • Sevo||

    ..."but to anti-smoking people, I'm just another of them, who are all alike, a whole inferior grouping."

    You might well be ENJOYING yourself when you should be paying penance!

  • Marc St. Stephen||

    This article's author asks the question, how does this blatantly wrong "science" not get shot down for the fraud it is. Simple, most of the funding for anti-smoking groups comes from big pharma - and it is a great deal of funding. The other big source of funding is the Government - most via taxes and settlements with Big Tobacco. There's lots of money to be made lobbying for the desires of anti.

    Couple with that the fact that big pharma also happens to have lots of expensive ads in the media - the media will not readily debunk this "science" lest they bite the hand that feeds them.

    In case you don't get it, big pharma has lots invested in stop-smoking drugs, and making tobacco - or ecigs for that matter - less convenient or acceptable helps their products sell.

  • GILMORE||

    "
    big pharma has lots invested in stop-smoking drugs, and making tobacco - or ecigs for that matter - less convenient or acceptable helps their products sell.

    Sigh.

    Nicotine replacement products like Nicorette, combined with pharmaceuticals prescribed for smoking-cessation therapy, like Chantrix, or anti-depressants like Zyban or Wellbutrin, add up *in total* to about $1bn annually in the US; maybe $2-3 globally.

    That's compared to say, tobacco revenues of maybe, $600-700bn globally, with maybe $250 of that in the US. The US government collects about $30bn a year in Taxes from tobacco.

    but... OOOOOHGHHOOOOOOOHGGGG BIG PHARMA!@!! scare quotes! CONSPIRACY! the truth is out there...!

    WTF is it about people that makes them run around and say 'authoritative shit' about things they don't even have the most basic understanding of? Like, where did you even HEAR this theory before you started to pass this on as Dogma? Or is it just "BECAUSE CORPORASHUNS!!?"-Theory, run amok?

  • Sevo||

    "WTF is it about people that makes them run around and say 'authoritative shit' about things they don't even have the most basic understanding of?"

    Idjits think there is this body of knowledge that is somehow kept from them. And then, they find a web site that promises 'amazing' information, and then their ignorance is somehow lifted! It is all clear, without any effort on their part!
    Well, no. Their ignorance is a product of failing to look at what is right in front of them and think about it. But thinking is HARD!

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Adam Carolla did the definitive take-down of second hand smoke Nazis in his Gavin Newsom interview.

    Even a community college dropout who was never taught to read before graduating government high school can see the holes in this BS.

  • ||

    You call it Totalitarian, but there is nothing more Libertarian than the concept that your rights to do what you want stop at the tip of my nose (or the line between our respective property).

    That it is necessary for government to mandate such a division speaks more of people who are bad Libertarians than of governments who are Totalitarian.

    I am allergic to tobacco in any form. Exposure to second-hand smoke causes me sufficiently severe health problems that any place with smoke is effectively barred to me unless I don a CBW-rated air filter.

    On the other hand, I have an unusually mild reaction to skunk spray. I've been sprayed by a skunk directly, and it barely fazed me. I can open a bottle of the stuff (used as scent mask/deer lure by hunters) and breathe the fumes with a fraction of the ill effects sitting next to a smoker (who is not smoking at the time) gives me.

    You consider laws against spreading toxic, noxious chemicals around people who don't want them to be totalitarian? Would you then support my 'right' to sit down next to you holding an open bottle of concentrated skunk spray?

  • ||

    Would you then support my 'right' to sit down next to you holding an open bottle of concentrated skunk spray?

    Sure, if the owner of the place allows you to do so.

  • Acosmist||

    Because if the government didn't force everyone to do it, no one would ever want to cater to the market of people who are more sensitive to smoke.

  • Sevo||

    Gindjurra|2.9.14 @ 9:16PM|#
    "You call it Totalitarian, but there is nothing more Libertarian than the concept that your rights to do what you want stop at the tip of my nose (or the line between our respective property)"

    You are obviously confused. Shut up, go read something on the issue and then get back to us.
    The claim that you get to outlaw what you don't like *IS* totalitarianism.

  • Seamus||

    I am allergic to tobacco in any form. Exposure to second-hand smoke causes me sufficiently severe health problems that any place with smoke is effectively barred to me unless I don a CBW-rated air filter.

    So everybody should be forbidden to smoke, everywhere outside their homes (and maybe even there), for your sake?

    There are people who suffer terrible, life-threatening allegic reactions from peanuts, peanut residue, and peanut dust. Should everyone be forbidden to eat peanuts outside their homes? Should Five Guys be required to get rid of the peanuts they have lying in big piles for people to snack on while waiting for their burgers? Or should people with just take responsibility for their own health and, if they have atypical sensitivities to various substances, take care to avoid exposure to those substances, without making their problems our problem?

  • Cantiloper@gmail.com||

    Seamus, and we most *definitely* need to pass a law banning shellfish from restaurants!

    - MJM

  • Cantiloper@gmail.com||

    Gindjurra, you say, "any place with smoke is effectively barred to me unless I don a CBW-rated air filter."

    So that means you're totally unable to drive through or visit in the suburbs in the winter because of all the fireplace smoke in the air? And you're unable to eat at a restaurant where they cook food in the same building where you'd be trying to eat (we all know that simply separating and ventilating a room where cooking or tobacco smoke is produced doesn't work, right? Or is tobacco smoke magical in some way that makes it different?) Burger King and flame-broiled burgers are obviously off your menu, but what do you do when you're at a birthday party and the candles are blown out and all that smoke rises up from them? Do you hose down the kiddies?

    The fact that you claim severe physical ill effects from simply sitting next to a smoker would indicate that you may indeed have a serious problem that requires attention: ASDS, AntiSmokers' Dysfunction Syndrome. It's a serious condition that not only harms you, but can harm the lives of those around you. If you would like to begin to take some steps toward recovery, visit Stephanie Stahl's excellent site:

    http://wispofsmoke.net/recovery.html

    and see if some of the information there can help you.

    - MJM

  • MSimon||

    I'm against exposing children to certain things. I'm not against exposing them to certain other things. I believe we can all agree on this.

    Now about the laws....

  • FuriousFatMan||

    i love that you can have a statewide ban on smoking in public places, but people are still allowed to bring their non-vaccinated, uneducated, disease ridden, whooping cough spewing, TB absorbing, welfare consuming bastard offspring into every single public area in the country where they spew commie filth, trash the place, create riots & turn a chuck-E-cheeses into a place less suitable for human habitation than Fukushima....

    but the smokers, we're the real 2nd class citizens......

    -FFM

  • CommonSense457||

    Smoking doesn't make you second class. What is does do is make the rest of us smell like an ashtray when you smoke in the room or space we are in. You deposit odors into our clothing. That is a universal truth about smoking.

    Everything else you ranted about really isn't universal. Hopefully you're vaccinated, and therefore immune to whooping cough, TB, etc, and smart enough to not let what other people think bother you. My advice is to just chill out.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Exposure to the smell of burning tobacco does most people no measurable harm. Exposure to high levels of sound does do measurable harm. Get the anti-noise campaign from the 1970's re-started, and then we'll talk. Until then you're just one more fusspot who wants to ban things he doesn't like, while expecting the rest of us to put up with YOUR vices.

  • CommonSense457||

    You will notice, hopefully, that no where in my comment do I suggest an outright ban on smoking. With that said, I am in favor of smoke-free establishments, airplanes, and hotels. Society now affords the smoker ample freedom to enjoy their vice without imparting odors onto other people's clothing, or affecting other people's asthma. And I feel compelled to ask you, what are my vices and how do they affect the rest of you?

  • Cantiloper@gmail.com||

    CSP, very true! btw, you're the same Charles I remember from alt.smokers, no? Send me an email guy! I've been keeping busy the last dozen or so years! LOL! Contact me through Antibrains.com

    - MJM

  • CommonSense457||

    Thank goodness hotels offer smoker free rooms, and some bars and restaurants make folks smoke outside. Other than that, smokers can do whatever they want. If they want to smoke in their house or car with their kids in there, go right ahead and light up.

  • Marc St. Stephen||

    "Other than that, smokers can do whatever they want. If they want to smoke in their house or car with their kids in there, go right ahead and light up."

    Except in many places now, by law, they can't. Maybe they can go to a nice open outdoor space and - oh, wait, in many places now they can't do that either (sidewalk, street and park bans)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online