I've said it before, and I'll say it again: smoking is dumb. It is stupid. It is foul, it is self-destructive, and it is disgusting. I have no sympathy for anyone who smokes; the evidence of how vile it is has been around for a long, long time, and today's smokers have no one to blame but themselves for their choices -- and the consequences they might suffer thereof. That being said, I am getting more and more disgusted with the anti-smoking side than I am with the smokers -- and as someone whose parents both died of smoking-related causes, that takes a hell of a lot. First up, in Massachusetts, they're considering a new law that would fine parents for smoking in a car with kids. While I think that is a truly noxious and vile thing to do, leave it to the Bay State to try to criminalize it. We are rapidly approaching the point where "everything not forbidden is mandatory," and this intrusion into the way people choose to parent (or, in this case, choose to badly parent) is just too damned much. Not to mention that it gives the police yet one more reason to pull over a motorist in Massachusetts. According to the last count I heard (during the debate over seat belt laws in Massachusetts), they already have in excess of 1,300 reasons on the books for a cop to pull you over. They "need" another one like Ted Kennedy "needs" another shot of Chivas. But that's Massachusetts. Such things are to be expected. If they didn't invent the notion of the "nanny state," they're certainly doing everything they can to perpetuate it. But here in New Hampshire, we have higher standards. We are a bit brighter, a bit more independently-minded, a bit more concerned with freedom, a bit more involved in individual rights and free choices. Whoops. Yeah, here in New Hampshire we're looking at a ban on smoking in restaurants and bars. What's wrong with the free market model? Why can't that determine whether a public place has smoking allowed, segregated, or banned? Several years ago, the Red Arrow Diner in Manchester -- a 24-hour eatery with a huge place in local history and folklore -- bit the bullet and went non-smoking. Opponents predicted it would pay a heavy price for the move, as the place was practically synonymous with cigarette smoke. But the owner thought it would, in the end, be good for business -- and he was right. It's not only going strong, but has been ever since it took the plunge. Other places set up "non-smoking" areas with separate air systems, to keep non-smokers from being troubled. They worked out pretty well. And when they didn't, customers voted -- with their wallets and their feet -- until the establishments worked out the kinks. I have my own rule of thumb: if I go somewhere where smoke bothers me, I won't go back. If they allow smoking, but it doesn't interfere with my dining experience, I don't really care. In Massachusetts, a lot of businesses made the mistake of trusting the state. First, they passed a law requiring very expensive, very elaborate air systems to properly control the smoke of the smoking areas, doing everything humanly possible to keep any stray smoke from wafting out of its designated zones. A lot of businesses spent a lot of money -- some well in excess of six figures -- on the equipment and installation. And then, a few short years later, saw it all wasted when the state went back and said "never mind, now you can't smoke anywhere in the building." All those very expensive ventilation systems suddenly turned into colossal piles of useless junk, and the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars the bars and restaurants had invested in them was just pissed down the drain. Again, I say that smoking is stupid. People who smoke are idiotic, self-destructive, narcissistic, selfish morons who pretty much deserve all they get -- diseases, poor general health, stinky breath and clothing, and scorn and disdain from the general populace. But they have a right to be idiotic, narcissistic, selfish morons. There is no more important right than the right to be wrong. Comments (50) I generally agree with you on this stuff; I also find the smoking bans in restaurants to be asinine. However, as a kid I vividly recall rolling down the car window and sticking my head out to get away from smoke. With a restaurant, you, an adult, have a choice on whether or not to eat there or work there. Kids don't have these choices. While I'm generally appalled by nanny-style government and many of its excesses - including some of its attacks on smoking - in this case I'm not particularly sympathetic to the smokers. The car-smoking proposal is only really the tip of the iceberg, because it's the most easily enforceable option. I've seen kids living in housing where adults smoked so much that it looks like a bar 24/7; what about those kids' stinky clothing, poor general health, and scorn from their peers? What would you do if your neighbors allowed their children to run around naked and covered in shit, and never bathed them? Would you write that off as just "hey, they have a right to be bad parents"? What we're talking about here is just a matter of degree; we need to figure out where the line is. Perhaps here in the States we need to set a high threshold for that line in the interest of personal liberty, but don't expect too much outrage from me on this one subject if they get it into their heads to do something. :: by Tim in PA on March 5, 2007 11:27 AM :: Yup, they just passed the smoking ban here in Baltimore. I am not a smoker, anymore, and hate the stinky clothes etc... from being in the smoking areas, but I hate the loss of choice for the business owner more than anything. :: by D-HOggs on March 5, 2007 11:28 AM :: Fergit it. Losing battle. Thought police will gag you. And nicotine is in fact a good drug. We just shouldn't inhale it. Not with all that other crap. ===================================== :: by kim on March 5, 2007 11:38 AM :: Tim, your post points to the next step. Banning smoking in homes with children. Where does it end? You can use the excuse of "for the children" to go after just about every behaviour deemed unhealthy by the masses. :: by J.R. on March 5, 2007 11:49 AM :: So Mass acts as if it wants to protect the kids from second hand smoke, but, not from all the other dangers and predators out there? :: by Gianni on March 5, 2007 11:55 AM :: Again, I say that smoking is stupid. People who smoke are idiotic, self-destructive, narcissistic, selfish morons who pretty much deserve all they get That's interesting, I feel the same way about people who say things like that. :: by Heralder on March 5, 2007 11:58 AM :: In Massachusetts, we consider it important that the small children have gopod healthy lungs into which to breath all of the ultra-liberal orthodoxy they are fed in the public schools. Sound body, sound mind and all that. :: by w on March 5, 2007 12:02 PM :: Property rights?!? Are you kidding?!? Please God, won't someone think of the children!?! :: by Baron Von Ottomatic on March 5, 2007 12:09 PM :: We just got a smoking ban here in Ohio thanks to a November referendum. We now have a whole new layer of state government devoted to the smoking ban, and all public places have a sign to post with the phone number for the smoking Police on it. I was hoping at election time that voters would realize enshrining this as a constitutional amendment was a colosally bad idea, but I was wrong. I don't like smoking, and the non-smoking sections of many restaurants have been a joke, but what a bureaucratic nightmare. Can't people just vote with their dollars and their feet? :: by Waffle King on March 5, 2007 12:23 PM :: As you may know California has had a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants for several years now. When they banned smoking in bars, at first I was a bit angry about it, even though I was a non-smoker. I mean, if you can't pursue a vice in a bar, for crying out loud.... My anger softened when I talked to a few bartenders who suddenly found work far more pleasant. I also reject the notion that this kind of restriction is un-American. On the contrary! When this country was founded, states and local jurisdictions were given considerable latitude to regulate personal behavior. It was the federal government that was supposed to stay the heck out of our private business. But local groups remained free to establish laws that reflected their social, cultural, and even religious beliefs. So what would be un-American is if the federal government were to impose a strictly local regulation on the entire country. Alas they now do it all the time. Now having said that I think that the conditions in California are ripe for a slight relaxation of the smoking ban. I now believe that the market would prevent a wholesale shift back to smoking/non-smoking; that most restaurants and even most bars would remain fully non-smoking. To be sure that's true we could make it a permitting issue and limit the number of smoking permits allowed in a jurisdiction. Yeah, I know, it's not particularly libertarian of me, but frankly I never was :) :: by mcg on March 5, 2007 12:26 PM :: "But they have a right to be idiotic, narcissistic, selfish morons. There is no more important right than the right to be wrong." Not when it infringes on my right or the rights of others to breathe clean air. Children have rights too, and when a parent endangers a child the law should step in - as they are in this instance. A parent doesn't have a right to expose their children to cancer-causing chemicals - why should this be any different? Just because the parent is endangering themselves they should have a right to endanger their child? That's stoopud. :: by Lee on March 5, 2007 12:32 PM :: 'It's for the Children' has always been the excuse for the government to either overburden people with more layers of regulations, or to slap additional taxes on people (or in Clintonese: 'contributions'). You might want to consider that the reason all these new laws (with fines) are being placed is not for 'the children', but primarily to 1) recover the revenues they are losing because cigarette taxes are not being collected due to people quiting and; 2) Like all other taxes, slapping them on those who can least afford to fight back is much easier than the state practicing actual fiscal restraint. :: by hermie on March 5, 2007 12:40 PM :: So Lee, you think children have rights?? Since when? :: by Alcudia on March 5, 2007 12:42 PM :: A parent doesn't have a right to expose their children to cancer-causing chemicals - why should this be any different? Just because the parent is endangering themselves they should have a right to endanger their child? That's stoopud. How far you gonna take that? Should the government regulate what parents feed to their children? Shall we create laws to ensure that parents keep their children far away from anything on this list? After all, 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women will get cancer sometime in their life. Surely legislation can prevent all of this. We have laws requiring car seats, we now will have laws banning smoking in a car with a child. What I want to know is why we are allowing children in cars in the first place. If we need laws to protect children from any risk, which is what such laws are meant to do, then how can we continue to put children in cars in the first place? Over 40,000 people die in car accidents every year in this country! It's too dangerous. Keep them at home, in a bunker, wrapped in bubble wrap, with surgical masks on, at all times. We need to keep the children safe! The children!!! :: by mantis on March 5, 2007 12:53 PM :: So Lee, you think children have rights?? Since when? Only if they survive the trip out of the womb. In the womb they have no rights and are free game. :: by DSkinner on March 5, 2007 12:54 PM :: I say we also have the right to not be exposed to the likes of old "pucker puss" (lee lee) (RTP) (RM) on this blog There should be a "troll free zone" here. On a more serious note have you heard any of the "I know what good for you crowd" making the same kind of laws about booze? You can bet that booze in the home does more harm in the long run then smoking. How about kids in cars with boozers. Naaw. 99.9% of lawmakers are booze drinkers. Ban smokers but don't touch my booze. I smoked for 40 years and am paying for it now but that was my choice. Never touched the booze but that was also my choice. Let me ask one question-when have you heard one of these PC correct crowd running around howling ban all booze,ban all booze? Jay is correct in saying people have the right to be idiots (like me) to smoke but DON'T tell me I cannot if I want to. BAN ALL BOOZE HOUNDS!!! Where are the lawmakers that are suppose to PROTECT us? :: by jhow66 on March 5, 2007 1:00 PM :: mantis: "How far you gonna take that?" Far enough to support this legislation. "How far" this goes is irrelevant until it - uhm, you know - goes farther. For now this specific legislation is needed, and suggesting that other legislation might go too far is just a way to duck the issue. :: by Lee on March 5, 2007 1:08 PM :: "How far" this goes is irrelevant until it - uhm, you know - goes farther. Ok, how much legislation designed to protect children from any risks would you support? For now this specific legislation is needed, Why is it needed? and suggesting that other legislation might go too far is just a way to duck the issue. Not ducking any issue, I'm asking a question about how far we are willing to let the government go to protect us from "risks." It's a legitimate question. :: by mantis on March 5, 2007 1:12 PM :: Again, I say that smoking is stupid. People who smoke are idiotic, self-destructive, narcissistic, selfish morons who pretty much deserve all they get Don't mince words Jay. Tell us what you really think. :: by Eric on March 5, 2007 1:17 PM :: Jay, There was a "person of the week" episode on ABC a couple of weeks ago,where they reported on a grade school kid addressing the NH legislature on a similar subject.He was being feted for his initiative -or something-in suggesting it to the reps.(His parents ,basking in the reflected glow of being something,had enccourages him to write to the legislators. My thought was to to offer a free tubal or vas to the couple so those genes weren't passed on again :: by corwin on March 5, 2007 1:22 PM :: Lee, since when have children had rights? :: by Alcudia on March 5, 2007 1:23 PM :: Btw Lee, this is what you said: A parent doesn't have a right to expose their children to cancer-causing chemicals Car exhaust contains "cancer-causing chemicals." Parents are exposing children to them simply by driving them around. Like I said, why are we allowing children in cars at all? :: by mantis on March 5, 2007 1:24 PM :: "Ok, how much legislation designed to protect children from any risks would you support?" What difference does it make. I support this legislation, which is the topic of the post. Do you NOT support his legislation because you're afraid of some other future, fantasy legislation? If so, then it would appear that you are willing to sacrifice the health of these children because of something you are imagining might happen with some future, unrelated legislative efforts. How bizarre - but you are still just avoiding the question. "Not ducking any issue, I'm asking a question about how far we are willing to let the government go to protect us from "risks." It's a legitimate question." Sure you are ducking it - because how far things might go in the future is impossible to predict accurately, and all it does is avoid the question on this specific issue and this specific legislation. But to answer you're question so you will hopefully run out of excuses for not asdressing the issue -- "How far?" you ask? I would say "this far" (to include this legislation) and no further until I see the specific future legislation that comes along, and can address that specifically. :: by Lee on March 5, 2007 1:26 PM :: Like some of the other commenters here, I also live in Ohio. I voted against the recent ban because I am of the "let them vote with their feet" perspective. On the other hand, I could actually support some even more draconian measures restricting smoking because of their stubbon refusal, as a group, to properly dispose of cigarette butts. It is theoretically possible for an individual smoker out walking his dog, driving in his car, etc., to stub out his cigarette and take it home for disposal rather than flicking it into my yard. But they don't. :: by Dave A. on March 5, 2007 1:27 PM :: "Car exhaust contains "cancer-causing chemicals." Great example. Should parents be allowed to pipe car exhaust into their vehicles, roll up the windows, and expose their children to that? Absolutely not. But that's exactly what's happening with cigarette smoke. :: by Lee on March 5, 2007 1:29 PM :: Speaking of ducking, Lee, since when do kids have rights? :: by Alcudia on March 5, 2007 1:29 PM :: Jay, some people think that: People who drink are idiotic, self-destructive, narcissistic, selfish morons who pretty much deserve all they get -- diseases, poor general health, stinky breath and clothing, and scorn and disdain from the general populace. :: by Jeff Carlson on March 5, 2007 2:05 PM :: Do you NOT support his legislation because you're afraid of some other future, fantasy legislation? No, I don't support this legislation because I don't believe it is the government's job to protect us from every danger out there, or, as in this case, to arbitrarily choose which dangers to protect us from and which to ignore. "How far?" you ask? I would say "this far" (to include this legislation) and no further until I see the specific future legislation that comes along, and can address that specifically. So you have no interest in discussing the role of government in general, you can only speak about specific legislation under consideration? And I'm the one ducking the issue? Great example. Should parents be allowed to pipe car exhaust into their vehicles, roll up the windows, and expose their children to that? Well, first of all they're not allowed to do that because it's homicide. But to respond to your question, why don't we just have a law saying parents must roll the windows down if they smoke with kids in the car? Not that any of this matters since we'll allow children in cars spewing "cancer-causing chemicals" with no protections whatsoever. Would you support legislation that forbids children from traveling in automobiles altogether (and living near roadways, for that matter)? If not, why not? You'd be protecting them from "cancer-causing chemicals," which is the government's job, right? And you still haven't answered my question: Why is this legislation needed? :: by mantis on March 5, 2007 2:05 PM :: Jeff Carlson, what was your point? :: by J.R. on March 5, 2007 2:14 PM :: "And you still haven't answered my question: Why is this legislation needed?" To protect the health of the children in question. "Would you support legislation that forbids children from traveling in automobiles altogether (and living near roadways, for that matter)? If not, why not?" Research has shown that breathing second-hand smoke is harmful to your health. There hasn't been any research I'm aware of that says traveling in cars produces the same hazard. Me: "Great example. Should parents be allowed to pipe car exhaust into their vehicles, roll up the windows, and expose their children to that?" You: Well, first of all they're not allowed to do that because it's homicide" How is exposing children to second-hand smoke in an enclosed car different? It'll take longer, so it's okay? "...why don't we just have a law saying parents must roll the windows down if they smoke with kids in the car? " That isn't practical in cold climates/seasons. The result would be that uncaring, un-compassionate conservative assholes would drive down the road in freezing weather with their windows rolled down, freezing their children in the back seat in the process - because "they'll be damned if any gummit is gonna tell them they can't smoke! but you knew that already.... :: by Lee on March 5, 2007 2:26 PM :: Research has shown that breathing second-hand smoke is harmful to your health. So is eating red meat, high-cholesterol foods, "trans-fats," and on and on. Are we going to make it illegal to give children any of that? Why not, its harmful to their health, right? There hasn't been any research I'm aware of that says traveling in cars produces the same hazard. Your original comment was this: A parent doesn't have a right to expose their children to cancer-causing chemicals Car exhaust contains such chemicals. Why do you need a study? Furthermore, the research, such as it is, concludes that living with a smoker or smokers or working in a smoking establishment slightly increases the risk of getting certain diseases. If we outlaw smoking in cars (which have lots of windows last I checked) with children but not smoking in homes with children, are these laws really having any effect whatsoever? I very much doubt it. Do you support laws limiting people from smoking in their homes if they have children? How is exposing children to second-hand smoke in an enclosed car different? Please point me to one homicide case involving second-hand smoke. Just one. I'll wait. The result would be that uncaring, un-compassionate conservative assholes would drive down the road in freezing weather with their windows rolled down, freezing their children in the back seat in the process - because "they'll be damned if any gummit is gonna tell them they can't smoke! but you knew that already.... No, I didn't know that. People who smoke in their car with all the windows rolled up are in my experience few and far between, but whatever. Most people who smoke in their cars roll at least one window down, even in the winter. If you have the heat on and one window halfway down, you aren't exactly "freezing" anyone. Oh, and btw, I'll be damned if any gummit is gonna tell me I can't smoke, at least on my own property. Anyway, you said this legislation is needed "To protect the health of the children in question." Fine, why wouldn't you support any and all legislation to protect children's health? :: by mantis on March 5, 2007 2:44 PM :: There hasn't been any research I'm aware of that says traveling in cars produces the same hazard. I don't know, those listed as part of these statistics may prove otherwise. Now I wonder how many children have died from second hand smoke from mom and dad smoking in the family truckster? So I would imagine then Lee, you feel the government should also make it illegal to smoke in you own home if you have kids too? Is that fair to say? :: by J.R. on March 5, 2007 2:46 PM :: "Fine, why wouldn't you support any and all legislation to protect children's health?" No doubt some might take that to the extreme, and I would want to support or not on a case-by-case basis. "So is eating red meat, high-cholesterol foods, "trans-fats," and on and on. Are we going to make it illegal to give children any of that? Why not, its harmful to their health, right?" I suspect that'll happen at some point in the future - the attempt will be made to legislate what a parent should or should not do with respect to nutrition. Putting cancer-causing or obesity-causing foods into an "18 years and over" category, for example. So we get back to the dance of what's healthy and what's unhealthy - and that's why the only intelligent discussion, in my view, is one that addresses specific issues like "smoking the car - yes or no?". Sure, as soon as you throw wide open and say "is all legislation of this type permissible?" there will be examples of the extreme, but that doesn't negate the need for this specific legislation. So what is the argument against this legislation? That it isn't unhealthy? That's it's unhealthy but it doesn't matter because their kids? That a parent has the right to kill their children? I'm still waiting for someone to suggest a good reason to vote no on this. :: by Lee on March 5, 2007 3:00 PM :: "So I would imagine then Lee, you feel the government should also make it illegal to smoke in you own home if you have kids too? Is that fair to say?" I wouldn't go that far. There is quite a big difference between the air volume of a house or apartment, and the air volume in a car. If it's isn't okay to smoke at the next table in a restaurant - which is the accepted norm now - why is it okay to force children to breathe second-hand smoke? :: by Lee on March 5, 2007 3:04 PM :: and the air in a house remains more stagnant than in a car lee, talk about spinning. I am still waiting to hear your answer to Alcudia. :: by D-Hoggs on March 5, 2007 3:09 PM :: "I wouldn't go that far. There is quite a big difference between the air volume of a house or apartment, and the air volume in a car. If it's isn't okay to smoke at the next table in a restaurant - which is the accepted norm now - why is it okay to force children to breathe second-hand smoke?" So lee, now we need to set levels of second hand smoke? Cause if it is not ok to force kids to breathe vehicle second hand smoke, why is it ok to make them breathe house second hand smoke? :: by D-Hoggs on March 5, 2007 3:13 PM :: "Thirty-three studies on secondhand smoke had been completed by 1993. More than 80 percent of the studies reported no association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, including the largest of the studies." from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html I quit from 2 packs a day on 1/1/97 cold turkey and I promised myself that I wouldn't become the idiot I had seen some of my associates become who had quit. However, when Georgia passed its restaurant and bar no smoking law, they did something I appreciated. They allowed for facilities that would completely refuse admittance to the under 21 set to allow smoking if they wished. Since it is a habit of mine to respond to "smoking or non?" with "Do you have a non-children section?", I'm enjoying avoiding the walking, screaming, annoying little infectious disease petri dishes. :: by RRRoark on March 5, 2007 3:32 PM :: Lee why would extending this law into the house go too far? A larger air volume means there is more room to fill with the noxious second hand smoke. Plus think of the amount of time spent in a car versus the amount of time spent at one's house. You would have to believe the exposure is more while in the house than in the car. So how could you not support legislation banning smoking in houses with children? I mean think of their health? Putting cancer-causing or obesity-causing foods into an "18 years and over" category, for example. Does this mean you would support such an idea? A government approved food list for kids? Will they also mandate an excercise regiment for children? Will the government ban risky activities, such as skate boarding for the benefit of their health? I can see it now, a kid approaches the counter and hands the cashier a bag of M&Ms while the cashier shakes his head and asks if the kid has ID to prove he can buy them! :: by J.R. on March 5, 2007 3:35 PM :: So what is the argument against this legislation? That it isn't unhealthy? That's it's unhealthy but it doesn't matter because their kids? That a parent has the right to kill their children? I'm still waiting for someone to suggest a good reason to vote no on this. Ok, here's an argument: this legislation would have zero effect on children's health. If a parent is willing to smoke in a car with his/her children, he/she is willing to smoke in the house with his/her children. Children spend way more time in their houses than they do in cars. People are far more likely to smoke in the house with the windows closed than in a car. I contend that such laws are not the slightest bit pragmatic, in that they will not have any effect on health. If those who support such laws had the courage of their convictions, and were really committed to eliminating the health risks children face from smoke, they would ban cigarettes altogether. Since even if they passed laws prohibiting smoking in homes with children, such laws would be impossible to enforce, the only pragmatic solution would be to ban smoking entirely. Banning smoking in cars with children is just an extension of the mindset that we need to be constantly protected from ourselves, even if such protection is false but looks good on the surface. It is pointless. :: by mantis on March 5, 2007 3:37 PM :: Pass me the bottle of booze please. :: by jhow66 on March 5, 2007 3:52 PM :: D-Hoggs, Maybe its too intellectual of a question for her. :: by Alcudia on March 5, 2007 3:56 PM :: Lee, another hypothetical for you. but since you won't address Alcudia's comments I doubt you will touch this one. Much research has shown that smoking cigarettes while pregnant is damaging to the development of the child once it is born. I would hazard a guess that there is more research on this than effects of second-hand smoke from a parent smoking in their car. Now why isn't this illegal? Shouldn't it be? It's more detrimental to their health. Of course your answer would have to be to make it illegal, yet how does that reconcile with your thoughts on abortion? :: by J.R. on March 5, 2007 4:47 PM :: Seems like libtard trolls run n hide rather than answer a simple question. Dems have helped murder 10's of MILLIONS of innocent babies, and Lee tries to argue in favor of children's rights??? How bout the right to live Lee, ever think of that one? :: by Gianni on March 5, 2007 4:53 PM :: Big surprise. :: by D-Hoggs on March 5, 2007 5:07 PM :: "Banning smoking in cars with children is just an extension of the mindset that we need to be constantly protected from ourselves, even if such protection is false but looks good on the surface. It is pointless." We're not protecting you from yourself, Mantis - we're protecting your child from you. There's a big difference. :: by Lee on March 5, 2007 6:39 PM :: Amazing lee, you chastize people in the thread below this for remaining silent when you asked a question of everyone, even though there were multiple responses. Now you won't even answer the most basic of questions. YOur hypocrisy knows no bounds. :: by J.R. on March 5, 2007 7:28 PM :: So Lee, unless you are a typical lying liberal hypocrite, since you want to protect a child from his/her parents, can we hear you take a stand against the murder of 4000+ innocent babies daily in America? Whats worse, a Marlboro in a Mustang with baby on board, or someone like George Tiller, the king of late term abortions, and a hero to many libs. :: by Gianni on March 5, 2007 7:41 PM :: I'm highly allergic to cigarette smoke and secondhand smoke in the air has completely ruined my life. I catch one breath of secondhand cigarette smoke and it results in painful ear infections and sinus infections that create a serious lung infection by the next day. I've had to make countless doctor visits from infected lungs because of secondhand smoke. My mother has developed emphysema due to secondhand smoke in the lunchroom of her J.C. Penney workplace. smoking is the drug addiction that allows the drug addicts to physically assault and sometimes kill others without fear of arrest. This needs to change. Cigarettes violate federal clean air standards. Emission testing of cigarettes must be required to reduce the 4,000 poisons which cigarettes contain including cadmium down to acceptable federal clean air levels. All public smoking should be outlawed period. Only in the privacy of one's one home should smoking be allowed. Any other release of this highly toxic smoke is a prime cause of ear infections in children, often resulting in ear tube surgery. asthma attacks, and other crimes that especially victimize children, the elderly, and those with respiratory problems who are not even allowed to go for short walks in their neighborhood because of secondhand smoke greatly restricting their freedom. Cigarette companies should face massive class action lawsuits by nonsmokers who have had their health and freedom taken away by the cigarette companies and smokers. Individual smokers should be sued for the public release of toxic smoke when it causes immediate health problems to a nonsmoker to cover their medical expenses. smoking in all apartment buildings should be banned, as the biggest cause of housefires are careless cigarette smokers. Every year thousands of homes, apartments and businesses are burned down by careless smokers. Firemen have lost their lives fighting fires caused by careless smokers. In a small state like Oregon, careless cigarette smokers have caused about 900 grass or forest fires each year, risking the lives of fire fighters. smoking is a reckless drug addiction that has serious health consequences and drives up the cost of fire insurance, health insurance and taxes by tens of billions of dollars each year. Up to 40% of all American hospital beds are filled at any given moment by those there because of smoking or alcohol use related problems that they brought on themselves. Nonsmokers with asthma, emphysema or who are allergic have to drive with their car windows rolled up, even on hot days because rude smokers stick their hands out the window and flick burning cigarette debris all over, causing both health problems to nonsmokers and possible grass or forest fires. smoking in a car should be illegal, period. It's also a distraction responsible for some automobile accidents. Smokers often display no good sense, just like any drug addicts. It is common for meth or other drug addicts to hang around grocery store entrances, panhandling for drug money, while smoking, making people sick who are actually shopping and spending money at the store. Many panhandlers are often seen smoking on public sidewaklks of shopping areas, hurting business by keeping persons away who might otherwise spend money, but don't want contact with secondhand smoke. Cigarette smoke is the only type of smoke that contains a drug, nicotine, that causes sleep disturbances and destroys the ability to have the deeply healthy REM sleep required. No one should be allowed to discharge a drug in a public place or to administer a drug to unwilling persons. Tough laws against smoking and the poisonous pollution it causes are only just and fair. :: by Paul Hooson on March 5, 2007 8:05 PM :: Now Hooson's position takes the public health argument to its logical conclusion. Something you're apparently not prepared to do, Lee. Paul, Oregon's not a small state. ;) :: by mantis on March 5, 2007 8:29 PM :: The IAQ in recently built homes and office buildings are just as bad, if not worse than a cigarette in a car. One could reasonably argue the air circulation in a moving vehicle is better than a home or office. Plastics, carpet, paints, etc etc all contribute to poor IAQ, so, should we live in tents? Maybe, just maybe we can but clean air credits from BiminiAir.com. It works for energy, why not air?? ;-) :: by Gianni on March 5, 2007 8:37 PM :: Add a comment