Is there a hidden agenda in the current anti-smoking craze?

Do the Drug Warriors see this as their last wedge to keep Marijuana illegal?

If they can ban all manner of smoking, they will also ban Marijuana smoking regardless of the legal status of Marijuana.

time ago. Making smoking hard to do.. and forcing it to not hurt anyone else.. is the only responsible thing to do. Smoking is bad for you and everyone around you. That is it.. that is all.

....so is breathing

when I took my 4 children on vacation for a month and driving them in a smoke filled car...eight plus hours a day. I quit 17 years ago and haven't felt better.
Many times I see a group of people smoking outside a building that I am going to enter, instead of using that entrance, I find another one. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke and it should be banned every place except the smokers home.

filling a car of smoke with kids in it. my god.... i wouldnt even want to inhale the shit, and drive in a car filled with smoke and i am a smoker. how abusive to your kids that you didnt even think of rolling down a window. geez.... if i acted like that as a smoker i would hate the old me too.

of foolish to have the air conditioner on and the windows open. Thats what smokers did and probably still do in 100 degree weather.

.. and it's not what they do now.

They open windows and sunroofs and crank on some AC. It's really not as foolish as some might think.

no...... i will leave sunroof half open and my window open and blast the air and then close. never have i left everything sealed up and smoked in a car. and cig stays in left hand by open window, always. not only would i gross out, but my kids would have a car full of smoke. duh

btw.... people that want to ban smoking in cars left me pissed, cause what i do i know there is no smoke going to my kids. i assumed all parents did. why i dont need a law to dictate to me, i use common sense

then i see that you cant go to a door of smokers and have the audacity to see them as inconsiderate, geez

enough to quit.

That's the incentive I used 4 years ago.

obesity is a MUCH bigger health problem in america than smoking.

Even though it might feel like it, watching someone else eat an ice cream sundae does not add to your hip size.

Walking by a fast-food place is pretty vile and noxious--sometimes makes me want to puke. The smoke of the grill is black and oily. Are you sure there's no secondhand exposure?

...fatty foods, meat, vegetables (they may have heavy metals in them), any sort of wheeled travel at over 2.5 mph, pointed scissors, match books, fossil fuel burning, etc....

Lets all stick an IV in our arms for nourishment and direct administration of psychotropics, so there is less chance of exposure to AIDS from a per chance contaminated needle.

Do you want more?

Don't miss the forest for the trees.

Smoking has no other purpose than to cause disease and kill.

Everything else you mentioned has another purpose.

And none of the other things you mention cause 3,000 cases of lung cancer and 35,000 cases of heart disease a year in people who DON'T SMOKE but are just breathing.

If you can keep the smoke inside your own body, you can burst into flames for all I care. You just don't have the right to spew it into the air where it causes disease and kills other people who aren't addicted to nicotine.

of total traffic fatalities.

I'd say driving or allowing your child in a car is FAR more dangerous, but that's just me.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

We're not arguing about driving under the influence. That has no effect on the HUNDREDS of thousands killed each year by smoking. I myself think drunk drivers should be imprisoned for at least ten years for each offense. But that's not what we're talking about.

Since you can't argue about the safety of smoking (because it doesn't exist), I understand why you're bringing in a totally different issue.

Im a former smoker. Smoking has a lot of benefits. As a former smoker here are the benefits I miss most:

Smoking after eating - its better than dessert
The smell of smoke (I love it, always have)
Decreased appetite when smoking (really helped keep the weight off).
The sociality of smoking in groups

I could go on and on - but to say there is not other purpose than to cause disease would be about as big a lie as saying we went into Iraq for Osama.

Those are not 'useful purposes'.

And 'keeping the weight off' is NOT a valid reason for smoking. Smoking kills far more people than overeating does.

No, I have never smoked, I am happy to say. My grandpa was addicted to it and was killed by it. And my dad smoked too, quit cold turkey at age 25 and is healthy in his 70s.

I once went to a gig in Camden Town, London. The air was thick with smoke all night.
When I got home, my nice clean white bra had turned yellow, from the nicotine, that woke me
up to the issue of second hand smoke, it was nasty. I say that as someone that has smoked on and off since I was 13 and though I still crave ciggies, I enjoy being able to breath easily when walking up the hill of my flat everyday.

In Britain the biggest problem is kids taking up smoking, banning it in pubs and resturants will be a great stpe forward and it is happening.

Thank you. I detest second-hand smoke.

while democracy dies.

Every single time one of these pops up, I see a flood of people I have never seen posting on DU chiming in... and they all seem to have 1000+ posts.

Now, I've been here quite a while, and it took me quite a bit of posting (often daily for long stretches) to get to where my count is today. By contrast, some of these people manage to rack up an appreciable fraction of that number in mere months.

:wtf:

Distraction is right!

I've seen a couple of those tombstoned in the past week...

I think anyone could hang in the lounge for a while and rack up a bunch of palaver posts in no time.

or in their own homes around their children? Yeah, probably, the world likes to blame mothers for everything.

However, there are consequences for smoking around your kids from glue ear to SIDS. Pediatricians need to warn these mothers so they can make an informed choice. Sometimes the addiction wins and the kids have to take their chances. Sometimes the addiction wins but Mom tries to go outside as much as possible. It's still her choice in her own home.

If you mean the one banning smoking in enclosed public places, that one is LONG overdue.

should not be a choice in this. Any person found smoking in a home/car/any building or outdoors within 25 feet of a child should be prosecuted for abuse and endangerment.

The rates of asthma increases over the years. Polluting is more detrimental to the health of "the children" (and how I hate that phrase) than their parents smoking.

I smoke but never inside, not my house, not anywhere, and my neighbors are far enough away that I don't think my second-hand smoke is going to get them.

If I were them (they have kids and I don't) I'd be more concerned that we live on the flight path of an airport (planes are low enough when they go over my house, I can see the people in the window.)

I'm all for smoking in public places ban, but if smoking is going to remain legal, they can't regulate it any more than that.

And pollution causes far more cases of asthma and cancer than smoking. Why don't we do something about that instead of gutting the EPA.

owned a car, so I live what I believe. I have long believed we need to lower auto emissions, increase gas mileage (at least double it), and bike and walk for short distances (less than 2 miles). Additionally, SUVs and minivans should be classified as passenger vehicles and buses and trucks should have to meet stricter emissions standards.

Failure to make adequate progress on the auto front, however, does not mean we should ignore the smoking front. Smoking impacts on the health of those around a smoker, and should be restricted to places where it doesn't affect others. Smoking around a child - in a private home or otherwise, should be considered child endangerment. It affects their health for life, decreasing their lung capacity, causing asthma, allergies, cold-like symptoms, etc.

I'm sure I could find a cause more pressing than auto emissions - are you saying that you shouldn't be fighting auto emissions because there is some other more pressing cause?

I hate smoking. I'm allergic to it and I grew up with parents who smoked. I spent my childhood in my room with a towel stuffed under the door and a window open, even in bitter winter weather.

Parents need to be informed what they're doing to their kids. That's as far as the nanny state can go, IMO.

Anything else is intrusive to the point of being totalitarian. No thanks.

You're talking WAY too much sense for this kind of thread. :thumbsup:

from sexually and physically abusing kids.

If a child showed up in the hospital on several occasions because they had ingested prescription medications that a parent had carelessly left laying around, the parent would be charged with child endangerment.

If the same toddler showed up because it had fallen down steps on several occasions because a parent had failed to block the stairs in some adequate way, again, the parent would be charged with child endangerment.

If a parent chooses to not educate a child, the state again will intervene.

What's the big objection to the state intervening when a parent endangers the health of a child through smoking?

What if a child had severe asthma and ended up in the hospital once a week because the parent refused to stop smoking in the child's presence and the child had frequent severe asthma attacks as a result? Is it the parent's right to keep smoking around that child?

Children of smokers have smaller lung capacities by adulthood, are more likely to develop asthma, and have other health problems, including respiratory, as the result of being around parents' smoking. Are you saying parents have the right to cause these problems, when simply ceasing to smoke in the home, car, and other locations when children are present, would prevent them?

do you really care so little for children?

and using the television as a baby-sitter.

better ban those too, since there are so many irresponsible cretins posing as parents that do a lot of BOTH.

restaurant, you can find unhealthy food. Allowing your child to eat massive amounts of unhealthy food anywhere is child endangerment.

As for TV, it depends on how often you use it as a babysitter and what exactly children are watching. I personally don't have a TV, but I did get some science DVDs my 5 year old nephew enjoys - I wouldn't consider allowing him to watch those to be endangerment, even if it was being used for the purpose of occupying him while the parents got a few things done. But yes, failure to interact sufficiently with your child would be endangerment - playing with, reading to and talking to your child are incredibly important to their development and well-being.

than second-hand smoke.

the vast majority of parents in the u.s. do NOT get their kids "healthy" food at fast food places.

of parents who do not get their kids "healthy" food at fast food places also do not get their kids healthy food at other restaurants, or feed them healthy food at home.

The problem is not the restaurant - it is the parent.

if one evil is to be left up to parents to decide- they all should.

intervene when a parent fails to nourish a child adequately and are starting to intervene when a parent allows a child to become grossly obese. i still fail to understand your line of reasoning -- because we are inadequately intervening when parents fail in one area, we should fail to intervene when they fail in another?

as it is, we haven't made it a crime to smoke in the presence of a child but i hope that's coming soon.

people have every right to raise their OWN children as they see fit, within the law.

do not have the right to smoke when there are children present.

Are you advocating that a parent has the right to smoke in the presence of a severely asthmatic child who has a severe asthmatic attack 50% of the time when exposed to cigarette smoke? That such a parent is not guilty of child endangerment?

What about the parent smokes in front of their children, knowing that children raised in smokers' homes have been shown to have smaller lung capacities, a greater likelihood of developing asthma, and having other illnesses related to smoking?

Are you truly advocating that parents should have the right to endanger their children's health, when simply not smoking in the home or car would be much healthier for the children? Would you also advocate that a parent has the right to leave dangerous prescription medications sitting around in easy reach of a child to OD on? And that if the child ends up in the hospital on several different occasions as a result of ingesting the prescription meds that the parent shouldn't be charged with child neglect?

It's a ludicrous position to take: that a parent's right to raise the child as the parent sees fit trumps the child's right to be raised in an environment where their health is not unnecessarily endangered.

or fill them full of sweets, sodas and fatty foods? or verbally deride their kids into the deepest depths of low self-esteem...? or any of a myriad other things that can be every bit as detrimental to children's health and well-being as second-hand smoke, and in many cases maybe moreso- but none of it is illegal either.

what would you prefer, a society built on the idea of individual choice, responsibility, and consequences, or a pc-police gone wild nanny-state...?

although, i'll bet i can guess which one you'd prefer.

no parent is perfect, and yet- the species seems to muddle through.

Judgmental. You sound like an anti-choice fundie.

should that parent be prosecuted for "child abuse and endangerment"?

Anyone found smoking within 25 feet of a child should be prosecuted? I totally disagree.

I smoke, but not around children, but you are asking for a Pandora's Box here. I want to be clear that I do not agree with smoking around children (or otherwise bothering people with smoke in closed spaces) but that is too much. What if a person went out on an empty street corner to smoke, and on the other side of the corner a kid walked up while that person was smoking? According to what you proposed, the smoker should be prosecuted. Talk about overkill.

Smoking sucks, I agree, even though I do it too. But go to Europe, the ME, Central America, etc, and it's very commonplace. Just like we don't want to imprison drug addicts, we should instead focus on working to improve government funded smoking-cessation programs or something like that instead.

well,..... in your little scenerio my parents would be in jail and i wouldnt have had them to raise me so a big f* u as an adult and perfectly healthy with two of the best parents i could have ever had. the audacity of you to talk about my parents that way. what kind of ugly person are you to decide my parents werent good enough to raise me. this pisses me off more than about any post i have seen. their smoking was insignificant in their parenting and loving me as a child.

you are the one that is pathetic and disgusting. just a huge how dare you, talk about my parents like that

I have a really loving parent who smokes like a chimney. I'm in perfect health and I don't smoke. Any person who advocates taking a person's child away because they smoke should be sent to an insane asylum.

My father smoked a pack and a half of Kents a day when I was a kid. We used to go on long car rides and I remember it fondly, like it was yesterday.
Actually that was 40 years ago and my father is now 80 years old. He did eventually quit smoking and he's doing fine.
I'm glad he wasn't prosecuted for "endangering" me! What an absolutely ludicrous idea.

Despite telling my mother and my grandmother how dangerous smoking was, they continued to smoke in my presence, and at times, forbade me to open the car window when I was getting ill from the smoke.

Children of smokers have smaller lung capacities, a greater likelihood of developing asthma and other respiratory problems, and have other health risks related to being around 2ndhand smoke. We don't even understand all the connections -- as a result of being exposed to 2ndhand smoke as a child, I will pay the price in terms of my health for all of my life.

Had there been a law which made it illegal, they would have ceased smoking indoors and in the car. But they refused to believe secondhand smoke was a problem (because the cigarette companies were suppressing what they knew) and didn't believe that smoking was as bad a health risk as it is.

nazi

See you in November.

The hidden agenda is avoiding discussion about environmental issues that affect every living creature on earth. Smoking isn't causing polar bears to drown and eat each other. Smoking is not causing glaciers to melt. Smoking isn't the cause of the northeast flooding. One 18 wheeled truck causes more pollution in a day than all the smokers in California combined in a year.

Why don't the smoking nazis just put a bandaid on a gunshot wound?

Also, where the fuck are you allowed to smoke anymore anyway?

"We're making smoking harder to do. We're keeping the air in bars, restaurants and offices clean. We have your health and best interests at heart."

It's a classic political move. It's much easier to go after individual smokers than to go after corporations that pollute (and they get WAY MORE CAMPAIGN MONEY from corporations than they're ever going to get from individuals, smokers or non-smokers.)

And if their constituents complain about the pollution the pols are NOT doing anything about, they're told, "Hey, I got the smokers out of the bars, didn't I? How can you say I'm not DOING anything?"

Yeah, right.

:eyes:

Why isn't this ire directed at the source?

:applause:

The obvious question is: WHY ON EARTH DID YOU DO THAT?? Answer: Married a guy who worked in a refinery who already owned a house in the area. Plus, I wasn't too environmentally aware in those days.

Getting to my point: I remeber in mid-80's after I'd lived there for 3 years, I'd get bad post-nasal drip, like I had when I smoked, so I went to see a nurse who told me most people who lived in Houston area got it sooner or later. Some days, I swear, you could see the air shimmer, I thought at time it was the humidity, but now I realize it was particles.

We moved later to NW Houston about as far as you can get from industry and still live in Houston area, and my post nasal drip cleared up!

Politicians are willing to pick on powerless, un-organized smokers, but, so far, VERY unwilling to take on industry, especially in last 25 years.

I have to agree with the people who say anti-smoking campaigns in some ways are literal "smoke-screen". Until something is done about cars, trucks, and industry, we won't have clean air.

For elected officials, its much easier to lecture people about smoking than to ensure they have access to quality health care.

Then all those uninsured people who get cancer will blame themselves if they can't get treatment.

and in the homes of people who smoke.

Discussing the dangers of secondhand smoke isn't diminishing concerns about environmental issues. It's not an either/or proposition. We can, and do, discuss both. Can you do two things at the same time?

And just as I'm against polluters causing global warming, I'm against smokers killing those who don't smoke.

Insurance companies will not be required to cover smokers - less cost.

Companies no longer have to offer smokers medical - less overhead.

Polluters - big biz - will have an expert witness testifying - no, it can not be asbestos (or whatever) it was because the plaintiff passed by a smoker one time on his way out of the building. Reasonable doubt - judgment in favor of defendant (company)
No more class actions

Smokers have to pay full price for any prescription and or medical costs - pharma additional revenue

Big biz wins.

...a Mack truck inside of a bar or restaurant.

Most of the anti-smoking talk and legislation concerns air quality in enclosed spaces.

Drugs Warriors are perfectly fine with smoking and drinking.

because it is bad for you, maybe then some will understand where this slope leads....

The agenda is a drive to help me breathe.

I am a steroid-dependent asthmatic courtesy of smoking parents growing up. Just a whiff of cigarette smoke triggers an attack. I think under those circumstances I and anyone else in the same boat deserve some thoughtful consideration (i.e., regulation since many smokers don't give a crap how it affects others).

To illustrate, one has the right to practice their kung-fu kick spins walking down the sidewalk. And one could say if you get in the way and get smacked upside the head, it's your own damn fault. But there has to be a modicum of reasonable behavior within a society. Live and let live.

I'm fine with nicotine gum.

smoking in my face, however, is infringing on my right to breathe.

I would assume people are grown up enough to making life choices for themselves. The data has long been in about smoking. If one chooses to jeopardize one's own wellbeing, so be it. No one has the right, however, to jeopardize mine.

As a non-smoker (reformed), I have the God-given right to look down on you and feel better about myself by telling you how inferior you are. It's socially acceptable, and it makes me feel good. So stop whining--it's not about you, it's about ME!

That's exactly the feeling I get when people go on and on about smoking. I don't smoke near anyone else, inside or out. Well, I don't even smoke inside. Don't want my dogs getting second hand smoke ;.)

Because those things make you look so sexy, and cool. :eyes:

Haven't had one in four years. I just hate hypocrisy.

Frankly, I think it's certain smokers who think it's all about them, in terms of laws against smoking in enclosed, indoor, public places. That, and "persecution".

It's not. It's about not wanting to combine eating breakfast with the unavoidable stink of someone's marlboro, actually. If you want that experience, go to Europe. Or Vegas.

The hypocrisy comes in when former smokers, and there are alot of them, start talking down to smokers and lording it over them. That's hypocrisy and I won't do it.

My dad died of lung cancer. I'm glad I never started (probably because, in High School when my friends started smoking cigarettes, I was one of the ones too busy smoking pot to smoke anything else. Funny thing is, pot was a breeze for me to quit) I'm sure I would have a hell of a time kicking that habit. I'm sympathetic, but I still don't want to breathe it.

That's funny, because I had my first cigarette to learn how to inhale so I could smoke pot. I wasn't crazy about the pot, but I took to the cigarettes right away! I was sorry to hear about your father; I'm sure it was pretty tough seeing him so sick. Two of my husband's brothers died of lung cancer, only a week apart. (It didn't make us quit smoking).

and I'm really not into passing judgement; it's not like I haven't battled my share of vices in my life. I'm just lucky cigarettes weren't one of em. I was totally the opposite; I liked pot, and cigarettes were always.. ick. But growing up in the midwest, most of my friends smoked- smoking was ubiquitous.

(I actually had a VERY brief -thankfully- chewing tobacco phase in my young adulthood.. Jesus, talk about a nasty habit)

That's why I laugh when I hear people in these threads talk about how some bars and restaurants would decide to be non-smoking without city or state ordinances; whatever one's views on smoking bans in public places, the reality is that doesn't happen on its own, not in my experience at least. I never saw a "non-smoking" bar in my life until they passed the California law. That was an eye opener.

But there are obviously extreme views on both sides. I don't like it when people get self-righteous, and I certainly don't think it's any of the government's business what people want to do with their own bodies. I guess I must be missing the gene that controls being interested in telling one's neighbor what to do.

Cigarettes are far more addictive and deadly. I would switch the way we have it now.

So, under those circumstances, I fully support that notion.

Plus, of course, I fully support medicinal marijuana use. It's been outrageous here in California (Santa Cruz and San Francisco) watching the federal government aggressively harass medical marijuana cooperatives.

but I think consenting adults need to decide for themselves about their own bodies. That applies to pot, it applies to cigarettes.

Public smoking involves forcing a choice onto people who did not consent to the second hand smoke.

I agree. I think California's laws are right on target- bars and all. Although I draw the line at laws against outdoor smoking in public places, unless its a fire hazard. I think if people are outside, there should be enough air for everyone.

"smoking + Hitler" and you'll find some interesting 3rd Reich anti-smoking posters. If I could post images, I'd do it here -maybe use one for an avatar. :)

Of course, it's an insidious 'control the people' ploy. Just as the free-flow of drugs over our borders. Just as that 'opium' of the people - religion. Just as poverty wages. It keeps open revolution at arm's length.

Think about it, if you're not taking a 5-minute smoke break every hour or so, who gets all the fruit of all that time when you would have been smoking but are now working??? (Hint: It isn't the ACLU or Big Tobacco)

The right has theirs, and we have ours.

People that say parents who smoke around thier kids should be jailed, are just... well.... dumb...

My parents raised me. Both of them smoked. They did a fine job, and I turned out great. Anyone who thinks they should be jailed for that needs to get a life, and butt out of everyone elses.

(1) While having lunch on the patio of the Awhanee Hotel in Yosemite during one of their controlled burns, I noticed a girl about 10-years-old at a nearby table. She was audibly wheezing and had a really tight cough. Being in the medical field, I recognized her respiratory distress. Both parents were smoking. I was having problems breathing because of the controlled burn smoke and moved away from the parents' smoking. I asked the parents if she had asthma. They said no. I asked if she had seen a doctor for her breathing difficulties. They said no, that she was fine. She wasn't fine, not by a long shot.

That was 10 years ago, and I WISH I had intervened. She was clearly struggling to breathe, but her smoking parents did not even acknowledge her distress much less feel any concern.

Jail time? No. Intervention? You bet.

(2) While lunching at Margaritaville in Capitola, CA, on the patio, a party sat down next to my kids and myself. One woman lit up and was holding her cigarette dangerously close to my then 9-month-old son's face while he was siting in a high chair. I asked her to please move her cigarette away from his face, and she turned and blew smoke right in his face. Nice.

**************************************************************************************************

Now I'll leave this thread so the smokers and others can carry on about Hitler and control freaks and feeling superior and all the other allegations made to diminish the concern and genuine problem those with respiratory illness face each and every day because of uncaring, unthinking people like you.

Enjoy.

There is a difference.

Not once did I say I was a smoker, and not once did I mention Hitler. Nice of you to assume both.

told you to eat shit and die.

The girl may have had a cold, nosy.

They would quite likely would have come out of there needing a doctor, and I would probably have needed a lawyer.

Yeah, extending her arm out over the back of her chair and holding her cigarette next to my son's face and then taking a long drag on her cigarette, half arising from the chair, leaning over and blowing it full-on in my son's face was a FUCKING ACCIDENT.

DU prevents me from expressing my contempt for you. Process THAT thought if you can.

I'm the child of a smoker and my lungs are pristine healthy. I have NO ALLERGIES. I'm not a smoker and I'm not a whiny sissy either.

If there is smoking in an establishment, go to another establishment. It's your responsiblity to move your kids if you think smoking is dangerous for them. The world doesn't revolve around you and other people have the right to live their lives.

to my question "Do you have trouble processing reasonable thought?", you've admitted your lack of reason and comprehension, and your post also indicates you are bereft of humanity.

in a car filled with cigarette smoke. Where, if you asked to roll a window down, the inevitable answer was "Why? It's freezing out there!"

It's bad for kids. I don't think the government should be regulating whether or not people can smoke around their kids or not (we have enough unenforceable, busybody laws as it is), but I do think it is bad for 'em. Certainly.

nightmare. Left or right doesn't matter, we are hurtling toward the amerikan police state, and the worst thing is that most of the sheeple don't care, indeed, many welcome it. :banghead:

How insidious. Smoke all you want - but in a place where it affects no one else's health, including that of children.

Period.

And I won't be drawn into the abuse tactic, because it's not. Smoking is legal. Beating a child is not.

Does your child attend a PUBLIC school?

Does your child play on PUBLIC playgrounds?

Does your child go to school on PUBLIC school busses?

Like it or not, the CHILDREN of this nation ARE everyone's concern!

We all MUST make sure that the next generation grows up Healthy and Well-educated!! Goodness, that is one of the reasons I am not a Rethuglican!!

That is why I willingly pay taxes to support a variety of social programs and institutions -- BECAUSE IT TAKES A VILLAGE, and BECAUSE CHILDREN ARE EVERYONE's BUSINESS!!

Do you support laws that REQUIRE parents to buckle their children into safety seats in cars?

I do.

Do you have a swimming pool, go rock climbing, fly, live near power lines, talk on your phone while driving, take prescription drugs, eat in restaurants, drink soda, eat meat, or any of the other thousands of things that damage and/or endanger yourself and others every day?

The point is that liberty is sometimes inconvenient and smelly and loud and sometimes unpleasant, but it is far superior to the alternative, IMO.

And stop acting like it's some kind of grand, evil sort of persecution equivalent to locking pot smokers up for 5 or 10 years.

So what do you do to the smoker that will not comply with the law? We are free or we are not, there is no compromise other than to succumb to the violence of the state.

Or a gas station.

Shit, we don't want to trample on that "essential liberty", now, do we?

That's an inane argument. There is a difference between the right to do something and the right to do it anywhere. The fact that you can't walk into a fancy French restaurant and take a dump on a table doesn't mean your rights to poop are being infringed.

As for what "I" would do? It's not up to me. I suggest you come to California and find out for yourself what perfectly reasonable laws against smoking in indoor, enclosed public spaces mean in terms of practical, real-world. enforcement.

authority into our lives.

As for living in California, I lived in LA for 12 years so I know all about it. I also know where people go that want to smoke. As with every attempt at prohibition, it only creates an outlaw underground.

And all my smoker friends who griped and moaned like the world was ending before the law came into effect have all adjusted.

I know where people go that want to smoke, too. The sidewalk. Big deal.

Again, it makes sense- if you think, philosophically, that there shouldn't ever be any restrictions on where people smoke, then why not the ICU or the gas station?

personally, and that is the trouble with talking to frogs that haven't noticed all those bubbles yet. Thanks to this law that is working "just fine", there is a healthy and growing underground of what are essentially, outlaw bars and restaurants all over CA now that ignore the law because their customers want to smoke, you just don't know where they are. This in itself is inconsequential, but where does it lead?

Another stupid, unenforceable (in SD they tasked the fire dept. with enforcement. Unfortunately the SDFD doesn't have the budget, manpower, nor interest), law furthers the indifference to all laws that is already rampant in our society and places even more unchecked power in the hands of those most likely to abuse it.

I can't speak for San Diego, but up here the law is TOTALLY enforceable because NO ONE SMOKES IN THESE ESTABLISHMENTS ANYMORE.

That, to me, is the definition of an effective statute.

People go outside to smoke. If you really think that's the worst example of the sky falling with imminent fascism we're dealing with in this country (it's the right wing states where you have the most "rights" to blow smoke in people's faces.) then I think you've got your priorities way out of whack.

And again, you refuse to answer my question. Is it legitimate to restrict smoking anywhere, in any circumstances? At a gas station? On airplanes? In a kindergarten class? The Hospital Emergency Room or Oxygen ward?

If you're unable or keep refusing to answer that question, I'm not going to bother with any other parts of your rant. Good day.

That sounds very much like what was said as the Voting RIghts Act of 1964 was being debated:

"So what do you do to the Property Owner that will not comply with the law and rent to Black Folks? We are free or we are not, there is no compromise other than to succumb to the violence of the state."

Your "freedom" is not absolute, and you have NO legal right to smoke!!

There is NOTHING in the Constitution guaranteeing you the right to consume tobacco.

is, in my mind, if my nose isn't involved, I should keep it out of your business.

There's no right to a lot of things in the constitution. I think restricting smoking is fine in public places where other people would have to breathe it in.

But the idea that people's bodies don't belong to themselves, but rather to the government- it's an obnoxious notion, and it's wrong with regards to consensual sex acts between adults, its wrong with regard to the drug war, its wrong with regards to pain management or assisted suicide, and it's wrong with regards to telling smokers they can't kill themselves.

I think there are legitimate reasons to restrict where people can smoke. But criminalizing the activity itself is a whole nother ball of wax.

I think it is perfectly OK for the government to enact laws such as seatbelt or motorcycle laws.

We all pay for the medical care of people who do stupid things -- like drive without seatbelts, or ride motorcycles without helmets, of SMOKE.

We live in an inter-dependent village where 10% of our economy is consumed by MEDICAL EXPENSES!

If the will of the people is to lower medical expenses through controls on people's BEHAVIOR (NOT on their bodies), then I think it is perfectly OK to heavily -- and I mean VERY HEAVILY -- regulate behavior regarding smoking.

It's always difficult for addicts to give up the stuff they are addicted to, but it's better that they do so -- better for ALL of us!

You'll get no argument from me that smoking is bad for you. Duh.

However, it's a slippery and difficult to define slope when you start criminalizing behavior based upon health costs. How many health care costs are incurred via fatty foods? Sugary drinks? Lack of exercise? Booze? (That's a big one) A lack of, say, judicious discrimination vis a vis sex partners?

Either you get to an Ayn Rand sort of point where everyone is totally and solely responsible for their medical and other social costs alone, or you accept that we are going to be paying for each other's "bad judgement" no matter what, and the sensible thing is to cheapen the process as much as possible by eliminating the insurance companies and fully funding a SPHC system, while simultaneously funding real, honest education into the effects of this stuff. There is also room, in my mind, for "sin taxes" on some things to help offset the medical costs. We spend $40 Billion a year on a drug war aimed primarily at pot smokers. Sorry, I don't believe pot incurs $40 Billion a year in health or other social costs. We could legalize and tax that relatively low harm drug, in my mind, and also use that to finance part of a full SPHC system. Meanwhile, drugs like alcohol cost society tremendously- if you follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, we should bring back alcohol prohibition, as well.

I disagree. I think that if we want to live in an interdependent yet still free society, we have to accept that our neighbors may make choices we don't agree with, while simultaneously we may make choices that piss off our neighbors. None of that, in my mind, changes the basic level of social compact which exists between us all. It's either that, or every man for him or herself. Messy, but that's reality.

of forcing your will, through threat of violence, on everybody else.

Just because you do not understand the meaning of liberty, does not mean that we must comply.

Personally I couldn't care less what stupid laws they pass about smoking, this is a larger issue that sets a precedent I'm sure you will be very proud of when it is fully applied.

"this is a larger issue that sets a precedent I'm sure you will be very proud of when it is fully applied."

Ah, yes...the slippery slope.

Gee, if we ban handguns, before you know it, "THEY" will ban slingshots!

:hi:

scientific evidence to outweigh the political clout of Big Tobacco and their minions, including tobacco state Congressmen and "it's all about choice" libertarian types.

like potheads do, then I'll accept that there's a comparison.

I think most pro-pot legalization people would be content for it to be legal to smoke in one's own home, or outdoors, and wouldn't be demanding the right to smoke it inside, say, restaurants.

I think it's disingenuous to compare being asked to step out to the curb to light up a cigarette with getting thrown in jail for smoking a joint.

That said, here in California I think we've restricted cigarette smoking more than enough. I certainly don't support telling people what they can do outside or in their own homes, cars, etc.

(A doctor I know got these points from a professor in medical school--not in the USA. He didn't exactly agree....)

1) The patients usually get sick after their most productive years.

2) The course of the disease tends to be short.

3) Afterwards, pension funds, etc., can stop. A big saving to society.

Head & neck cancers can be more curable--but the surgery involved is a bit unpleasant. And emphysema patients can take a long time to die.

Personally, a few friends my age have already died from tobacco--I miss them. If current smokers are feeling oppressed--I don't give a fuck.

If marijuana becomes legal, I won't be smoking it in public--I promise.

use whole wads of faulty and disingenuous logic. Reading this thread offers multitudes of proof.

in fires, the number one killer is smoke, not flame.

smoking is a drug addiction, not a habit.

the smoke that is bad for you is also bad for anyone else exposed to it.

smoking nicotine delivery systems has nothing at all to do with: marijuana, right to free speech, sanctity of the home when children are being poisoned.

it is a drug addiction like crack, heroin and others. smokers are junkies.

smokers will say and do anything to justify their addiction.

Msongs

listen to our song demos!
www.msongs.com/msongsdemos.htm

Yeah, and drowning is also deadly. Being exposed to water isn't. Most smokers know they're addicted and some can't quit. Why be an asshole towards them?

The Drug Warriors, that is.

Or, how about this one:

"You'll pry a cigarette from my cold, clammy fingers!"

Or,

"The Constitution Guarantees My Right To Smoke!"

Or,

"Smoking Is NECESSARY for a well-adjusted militia!"

Or,

"Millions Died So That I Could Maintain My Addiction to Smoking!"

It just goes on and on and on......

But the TRUTH is that THERE IS ***NO*** GOOD REASON TO SMOKE!

And, as someone else here has said, ADDICTS who REFUSE to give up their filthy, disgusting, unhealthy, and THREATENING lifestyle wiil say or do ANYTHING to justify their destructive behavior!!!!

Anything beyond that goes too far.

People's bodies belong to themselves- not the state, not the church, not "God". If people choose to kill themselves via smoking, drinking, eating shitty food, etc. (as long as they're not endangering others in the process) that's their business.

I think California's laws against indoor, public smoking are plenty. I draw the line at telling people they can't smoke outside.

Or, if not banned completely, then banned far more extensively than any place has already done!

I would BAN completely smoking in ANY household that has children under the age of 12.

I would BAN completely smoking in ANY private car where children under the age of 12 are riding.

I would BAN completely smoking in ANY hotel or motel room.

As far as public outdoor smoking goes, I would be in favor of "Smoking Bubbles" -- similar to the "smoking rooms" that already exist in some airports -- outdoor rooms with their owm air supply where addicts can go to get a fix, without polluting the air where we non-addicts live and breathe.

But even though I think subjecting your kids to cigarette smoke is atrocious, I think we have enough unenforceable laws as it is.

They want to ban all smoking and arrest those who do for assault. Smokers are a minority and soon, all people who smoke will have to do it only in the privacy of their own homes. Even that is being questioned when it comes down to certain family warfare.

This anti-smoking insanity has got to end. It's obviously not just about smoking cigarettes.

the Food Nazis--about sex, especially any "unlawful" sexual activity by women. They went so far as burning women at the stake for having commerce with the Devil. And the Puritans believed this crap, just as much as the Anti-Smoking Nazis and the Food Nazis believe what they believe. It's sick. It's a very sick syndrome in our culture, and is very much a substitute for the Anti's powerlessness when it comes to Corporate Pollution, the destruction of our planet, and other fascist evil--like slaughtering a hundred thousand innocent people in Iraq. It is, for the most part, displacement. It is also a manifestation of the "inner Nazi" in what seem like perfectly normal, acceptable people. They have few other issues to use as an excuse to shame other people, in these days of sexual freedom, but that nasty impulse is still there--wanting to shame others to make yourself feel virtuous. I do think there is a health issue, but I don't think that explains the Puritan shaming glee--the self-righteousness bitchiness--that comes over people when they see someone smoking--and sometimes don't just see them, but go up to them, to perfect strangers, and chew them out; or the warm feeling of do-goodism that comes over them when they've succeeded in banning smoking at a beach or a park. It's really disgusting behavior, and most certainly could lead to really terrible policies--like denying health care to smokers, or denying employment to smokers even if they don't smoke on the job (both of which have already begun). It is Nazism--the seeking for impossible bodily purity, and control over others.

I believe in a reasonable policy. I DON'T think anyone should be subjected to second-hand smoke, who doesn't choose to be. So for the most part buildings should be smoke free. But why ban smoking in all buildings? Why can't there be smoking bars, and smoking restaurants? Clearly marked--if you go in there, you know you will get second-hand smoke. And these places would only hire smokers as employees, or at least would give job-seekers clear warning. Smokers have been turned into second-class citizens. The President gets away with murdering tens of thousands of people, and torturing many more. But smokers have NO public place to go to, where they can relax and smoke? Something's wrong with this picture, and you all know what it is. It's easy to bully smokers. But we are powerless to control the really bad guys. And the dividing line is money. Those with lots of money get to do what they like. Those with little money get pushed around. This is wrong. And prohibition is ALSO very wrong. We tried that once with alcohol. That law--a Constitutional amendment, no less!--wreaked havoc to our country and our society. It turned anybody who had an alcoholic drink into a criminal--and created a terrible criminal culture, just like the ban on recreational drugs has done today. All of these bans are vestiges of Puritanism. They satisfy the craving to shame and ostracize others, and to feel virtuous--and they justify vast police expenditures and a vast prison-industrial complex, for non-violent crimes, by INVENTING crimes. Prohibition doesn't work, and it violates basic freedoms in uncountable ways--not just against users of the banned thing.

Anyone with any sense knows that drug addiction, like alcoholism, is an ILLNESS, not a crime. Nicotine is a drug. Those addicted to it are ill. Some people kick it easily; some do not. Quitting smoking can be as bad as kicking heroin for some people. It can even be perilous to your health to quit smoking. It can result in obesity and mental problems--and great stress. For some people, the trade-off may not be worth it. And I think for quite a lot of people it is NOT a choice--any more than any other drug addiction is. Alcoholism has been shown to be genetic. Maybe drug addiction including smoking also involves genetic predispositions. Why would anybody choose to be addicted? They don't choose that. They take up drugs including tobacco, and alcohol, for other reasons--usually social reasons, to start. It eases their social pain. Perhaps life's pressures then get to be too much for them. They can't cope without the "break" that the drug gives them. And THAT is society's problem. WHAT has Corporate Rule done to our families, our communities, our society, to make life so pressured? Why are some people not able to cope, without the crutch of some drug? How can we ease their suffering?

People who get all pissy about second-hand smoke even in today's world, with a smoke-free environment mandated by law virtually everywhere they go--strike me as selfish people, whose only concern is their own health. They claim to be concerned about others. They are not. They are the sort of people who would viciously kick smokers out of health care programs and insurance, because "I don't want to pay for other peoples' 'choices.'" They would do the same to couples who had chosen to give birth to a flawed baby. Why should THEY pay? Or to gays with AIDS--blaming their lifestyle. They really want to live on an island where they are king or queen. Their own health, and their own pleasure, is all. And they probably blindly step over the foul homeless people sleeping on the street to get their afternoon latte. They want no polluting presences in their lives. They are way, way out of touch with their "dark sides"--and have the potential, at least, to be very dangerous people.

I've known people like this--so I know they exist. Anti-smoking is the new dividing line between the in-crowd and the out-crowd, and often between the rich and the poor--the poor, of course, suffering far, far more stress than the rich, and with no relief (--they can't afford massages and herbal wraps!) (--so they smoke, to blot it all out?).

The Corporate Rulers seek a vicious, fascistic culture in which THEY control everything you ingest, everything you do and everything you think. The anti-smoking crusade is the civilian counterpart, and it is equally vicious--and is led by control freaks. Health and virtue have their place. But they carry it much too far--and that gives them away. I knew this when they started talking about banning smoking outdoors. They are not content with banning smokers indoors, which is reasonable. They need to extend their control over the entire world. In this, too, they are much like the Corporate Rulers. The Corporate Rulers also want you to feel isolated and alone, and totally dependent on them for everything. They now even control our voting--with "trade secret," proprietary programming code in all the shiny new electronic voting machines (compliments of the Bush junta and the Anthrax Congress). It would be far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far better for our society if the anti-smoking crusaders would spend their energy banning "trade secret" programming in our voting machines--than on kicking smokers off beaches or out of parks. (And McDonald's and soft drink peddlers pollute beaches in far worse ways than smokers do!) (Sidelight: I wouldn't mind seeing anti-littering laws enforced against smokers, though--they really can be thoughtless pigs--some, not all. And why aren't cigarette filters bio-degradable? That would be a good regulation!)

We need to watch out for the tyranny of the majority. Reasonable laws, yes. Crusades, no. And as a society, we could use an infusion of pity and compassion, and of selflessness. Some of the best people I have ever known have been smokers. Brilliant people, good people--the last people in the world who would ever want to inflict harm on anyone. But I would say that they are highly stressed people, on the whole, often driven by creative daemons, and struggling with inner conflicts. I'm thinking of one man in particular who hated his behavior toward others, after he quit smoking--couldn't abide it, and started smoking again, in order to be a BETTER PERSON--kinder, more patient. What does THAT tell you about smokers, and why they smoke? For some, it is a way of healing themselves, of fostering peace, of creating a happier environment--odd as that they sounds. People regulate their anger--their daemons--in different ways. Smoking may not be the best way to do it, but is A way. Would you rather have them shooting up buildings with submachine guns, or blowing their brains out, or just being bastards? The same with child-rearing. Would you rather have a mother beating up her children, or running off into the kitchen for a smoke? Sometimes that's the choice. And until that mother has OTHER reliefs, I would rather she have her smoke, her moment of peace, her chance to gain perspective! Our "dark side" HAS to be dealt with in some way--especially in this high stress society. People who obsess on physical health--often their own--ignore the many other ways that people abuse and are abused. Second-hand smoke is the least of it. It has largely been dealt with, as a hazard, and it's time we get off this crusade and start dealing with the far worse problems of poverty and out-of-control corporate fascism--the "dark side" of this vicious society that Bush is trying to create.

Really excellent.

for "Greatest Post".

I think this answers the OP's question perfectly.


Crusades suck; mob mentality sucks too.

Although you have been applauded by those who love this kind of flowery diatribe espousing freedom at all cost, what you have done is turn a blind eye to the not particularly nuanced fact that there are some people in the world that suffer serious, sometimes catastrophic physical reactions to cigarette smoke.

Objecting to being subjected to cigarette smoke under those circumstances does not equate, not even in the slightest bit, to self-righteous bitchiness or fads or selfishness as you allege, but has everything to do with the simple primal drive to breathe.

You can weave this issue into a social pathology and invoke terms equivalent to fascism, but what it really boils down to in the final analysis is common courtesy, an old fashioned term many in our society either have forgotten or never learned.

Sharpening up one's elbows may be an effective way to shove one's way through life, but it is by no means honorable or decent. Coexisting peacefully and thoughtfully is.

I have a difficult time when I buy laundry detergent and have to go down the aisle to pick out my non-scented laundry soap. Do you hear me whining incessantly about it? NO.

I go to a big city with massive amounts of air pollution where my eyes water, I have asmatic symptoms and do I b*tch about it? NO

So, what gives you the right to b*tch about so-called second hand smoke?

No? Well, then you have zero comparable frame of reference.

Nice try, really, though pathetically ignorant.

*** "so-called second home smoke"??? Yes, and the earth is flat and there is no such thing as global warming. The information you are sorely in need of is cleverly concealed in newspapers and books.

shouldn't be allowed to smoke?

On an airplane? In a hospital ICU? At the gas station?

If not, then you accept that it's an activity that has restrictions upon it. The disagreement, presumably, is how extensive those restrictions should be.

Likewise, it's not against the law to take a dump, right? I mean, if the cops came into your house and arrested you for taking a shit, that would be -to say the least- excessive.. Right?

Now, how about if you went into a fancy restaurant and took a shit on the table?

See where I'm going with this? Just because something is legal, doesn't mean there aren't times and places where it's okay and not okay. It's legal to read Hustler or Playboy, and it should be- but you can't walk into a Kindergarten class and unfold Miss May, can you?


As far as what gives ME the right to bitch about the REALITY of second hand smoke? Nothing. Because we have damn fine laws in my state which clearly say that in indoor, public places, YOU CAN'T SMOKE. So I don't really need to, do I?

Oh, wait- it's not that you can't smoke. You just have to endure the civil rights-trampling indignity of stepping out to the sidewalk before you light up. Comprende?

drunk and beat their wives, that children suffered, that health was impaired to EVERYONE's detriment. So they tried to ban all use of alcohol, by law--by amendment to the Constitution! It was wrong-headed--and led to far worse evils. It's not that drunkenness is good. It's the METHOD of dealing with it that I'm talking about it. I think I said that NO ONE should be subjected to second-hand smoke who doesn't choose to be. And I meant it, as a rule. I AGREE with that. What I don't agree with is carrying it too far. We are clearly headed toward making it illegal. This would be a huge mistake. It's American Puritanism gone mad again. We need to temper these do-gooder impulses just a bit--with accommodation to peoples' addictions, with fairness to them. It--the banning mentality--also has a financial component: the medical insurance industry profiteers would like to cut EVERYONE with any risk of a medical problem off their insurance rolls. We know this is true. The anti-smoking crusade gives them yet another opportunity to do so.

Look, smokers are generally not out to hurt anyone. Nor did they intend to become addicted. Addiction is irrational--and physical. We certainly need to protect people from second-hand smoke--just like we try to protect people from drunk drivers. But would you agree to let the cops stop EVERYBODY and subject them to alcohol tests, with no probable cause? THAT would stop drunk driving. But it violates the 14th Amendment, and presumption of innocence!

I'm just saying, be temperate and reasonable. We cannot, as a society, protect ourselves from every hazard, and expect to remain a free people. And the bigger hazards--threatening our entire planet--are being ignored, are being made worse, by Corporate Rule, including, now, direct Corporate control of our vote counting.

On a personal level, if you are bothered by second-hand smoke, GO SOMEPLACE ELSE. You have almost the whole world, now, to go to--to be free of second-hand smoke. Why pick the tiny spot where smokers are still allowed to smoke? It's obsessive--and Puritanical--to be so upset by the some little cadge of smokers off in a far corner somewhere, or out on the sidewalk. And, in truth, they are the least pollutants of your environment. What about outgassing and closed windows in your smoke-free buildings? What about the pervasive chemical pollution--in food, in water, in the air, in furniture, in appliances, in your fatty tissue? All the result of Corporate Rule. Curtailing Corporate Rule will ultimately be far more beneficial to your health, and everyone's, than harassing some poor smoker on a beach, way far away from you! (You don't have to be near that smoker--you are not forced to be.) Try to gain some perspective--and please try to understand displacement. Why is there so much venom against smokers, when they are ALREADY severely restricted?

This isn't an issue for me.

I have only presented a piece of the picture ignored or disregarded by some.

There are genuine health concerns that any person is more then welcome to invite into their own lives, however, it is only fair and reasonable and peaceful and thoughtful to be mindful and understand that that bad habit impacts those around the smoker as well.

But, like I said, it is clear some have absolutely no intention of coexisting responsibly with others. Pretty breathtaking attitude to find on an allegedly progressive message board.

See you in November.

a long term smoker was diagnosed with lung cancer and died within 2 weeks. It was hard to justify continuing a habit that could kill me and I considered it an insult to her memory to continue smoking. I have hated smoking for years and I hated the addictive power it held over me, Little did I know it was mostly in my head, and that there are certain circumstances that can cause you to quit. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THE NICODERM PATCH, It allowed me to get the nicotine out of my system,

I see no drug related conspiracy in this, I do see a legitimate desire to reduce smoking related health care costs as an admirable goal and in this case I don't think this is a political issue.

I haven't heard anything about it, but then I don't go searching out that sort of stuff. If smoking is being outright banned in a state, then that's totally wrong. But if it's merely bans on smoking in enclosed areas like restaurants, then people need to get a grip and realise that them not being allowed to smoke in places like restaurants isn't a ban on them smoking at all. There's been bans on smoking in restaurants here for years and if American smokers are so lazy and inconsiderate that they can't get up from a table and walk outside to light up, then they're idiots...

I dislike militants of all types, and militant smokers and militant anti-smokers both are equally as whiny and irritating as each other....

if cigarettes are illegal, think about the profits.

I'll tell you why . I doubt if there is one person in the USA that provides a picture of perfection . Everyone has something that irritates someone else and everyone past the age of 16 is a potential danger to someone else . Whether you drive a car or use a stove , it matters not you pose a danger . Now if you intend to point fingers to effect a ban to change anything then before you do decide first just what you are willing to give up in exchange , remember no one is perfection so what are you willing to toss on the table well before starting to point fingers ?

I smoke but I don't like anyone spraying raid near my apartment , so if you are willing to live with bugs then i will not smoke , we have a deal? Let me tell you your insistence to release a chemical troubles me as much as my smoke may trouble you .

On top of anything else the air is screwed up from all the exhaust and stacks as well as the water and food and people choose not to educate themselves on any of the products they do buy that destroy their quality of life much more than cig smoke will ever do . If they can't see it or smell it well I guess it MUST be perfectly safe . Idiots .

And yes , to answer the main question , it probably will lead to a nose picking up your pleasure of the day MJ toke in the privacy of your own home and you ending up in jail for both smoking and drug charges . All because of one insistent ignorant fool . It's like pissing in the roadside , it's unlawful but these days try to find a restroom anywhere on the road if you needed one , what do you do , what ? Oh well , it's against the law , you might kill a weed .

They just like bossing people around. You see the freeper types who like being mean to waitresses, etc. The same kind of people (but perhaps with different politics) are the anti-smoking types.

I was thinking about how they say that you can tell a person's true colors why their treatment of waitstaff. I think the same thing about anti-smoking nazis. I'm actually thinking about putting anti-smoking nazis on ignore. I don't mean the people who think that smoking should be restricted in public places. I'm talking about these people who believe there should be jail time for people who smoke around their children. Seriously, those people might as well be freepers in my book. They minimize the reality of child abuse by insinuating that smoking is comparable in any way.

Heck your food tastes better without a butt in your mouth. But I draw my line at taverns. Taverns are supposed to be smokey.

If you're a smoker and you don't want to go outside, don't come into such an establishment. Same thing for non-smokers. And as far as workers rights go, its a complete straw man argument as far as I'm concerned.

much less restaurant, until it was legislated.

Be for or against the bans, okay- but the argument that some establishments will "voluntarily" decide to become non-smoking is a fallacy. They won't. The owners will try to get the smokers and the non-smokers will have to suck it up.

Given that reality, I don't believe asking smokers to step outside to smoke- like we do in California- is such an onerous infringement on freedom.

If you care, then don't do it around us, and don't let us catch you doing it around your kids. We think you're acting rude for the former and abusive for the latter, no matter if the system lets you do it or not.

If you want to bitch up a storm about your rights, you might get us to be quiet about it around you, but we still think it's boorish and slovenly. If you like people avoiding you and not telling you about it, I guess there's nothing else to say.

The more I read this and other smoking threads, the more I believe this.

There are plenty of ways to avoid smokers if that is your wish. Take responsibility for yourself.

like living in California!

:woohoo:

It's not that big a deal.

advocating for such laws, I protect myself and all other non-smokers.

Even now, there are many places where I end up being exposed to cigarette smoke from smokers who are smoking in places where it is illegal and there is no convenient authority to get them to stop.

It's the overwhelming need I see many here have to blast away at smokers and treat them like second class citizens. That is fucked. I can't imagine breaking the no smoking ban in California... There is zero tolerance, and that is fine with me. There are plenty of places to smoke... cool rock bars that are non-smoking inside but have a killer roof top area where you can smoke, and there is a separate bar.

The farmer and the cowboys can be friends. It's an age old situation and I'll be damned if people aren't hell bent to reinvent the wheel.

I can't go to certain malls because they either have a hair salon or a stupid fake ass nail salon... the fumes from those places make me hurl in 10 seconds flat. I'm NOT exaggerating. I had three kids and major morning sickness (all three pregnancies combined, I woke up an threw up every single morning for two solid years) that left me ultra sensitive to certain odors. I can live without those malls. And I can live without the rock bars that don't allow smoking. If there's a band I want to see in a non-smoking venue, I don't smoke. No one in California would. You can't. The man would be on your ass before you can take your second drag.

So why don't you guys raise some hell with your local authorities, mayors, congress, whatever. Slagging all smokers because you just happen to not like the smell or effects of smoke is lame. Do something constructive instead.

Trying to completely outlaw a creature comfort/vice ain't going to happen. So do something constructive that will help you deal.

"Could you please not smoke? It's bothering me."

You would rather call a cop.

That's not public health advocacy, that's bloody cowardice.

Frankly, I think it is a smokescreen, pardon the pun, to distract from industrial pollution.

People love to get on a self-righteous anti-smoking crusade. Like obesity, it's considered to be a moral weakness. That a person is a lesser one if he or she smokes or is overweight. A great way to divert attention from donating polluters is to play up a popular prejudice focusing on individuals. That way the proles don't bother to look at the bigger picture.

If you live in a smoggy city, briefly inhaling a person's cigarette smoke isn't going to matter. And avoiding cigarette smoke your entire life isn't a guarantee you will avoid lung cancer, asthma, and other ailments considered to be smoking-related. I can avoid smokers, but I can't avoid the crap industry belches into the air.

I don't doubt that smoking is bad for you. However, as a non-smoker, I don't expect the world to accomodate me either. I just take an allergy pill if I am going to a place with smokers or if it is too smoky then I leave and don't return.

If you are a pregnant woman who sits in traffic often, I'm sure that getting a noseful of exhaust on a regular basis isn't good for the woman or the child. Cockroaches can also cause breathing problems. Finally, chemical smells from things like new carpet certainly aren't good for you either. So in short, if you are searching for a pristine enviroment then you are fucked. There is none in a modern society.

It just goes to prove that the temperance movement is still alive and well. I don't think it is really a last gasp to keep MJ illegal though. More like the "morally-correct" authoritarians trying to impose their will on us further. They hate us for our freedom. :D

IT'S TO DRIVE THE REST OF US FRIGGIN' CRAZY.

Anti-smokers are more obnoxious than the right-wing fundamentalist morals police.