The Smallest Minority

This bullshit is definitely a property rights issue. And it's hopeless. I've said as much in letter to our local paper, and promptly received hate mail ( anonymous, of course ) saying it was "just common sense".

Just wait until they extend it to say you can't have a gun at home because your neighbors are in danger. Or you can't BBQ because the vegan lady next door suffers mental anguish. Sometimes this shit makes me feel like going canary.

Small Minor;

"What we're headed for is a government mandated ban on smoking in your own home - and the excuse will be (as it usually is) "It's for the CHILDREN!""

Exactly, and you mark my words that it won't be long before the State removes parental rights because a parent is a smoker.

I can see a divorce,(s'cuse me, a "family law"), attorney altering his or her brief in a custody battle as I write this.

BTW...anyone know what became of the Tobacco Settlement monies the state attorneys-general strong-armed out of Big Tobacco?

Yeah, exactly what Big Tobacco SAID would be done with it, huh?

So, in this instance, I'd opine that Big Tobacco is more trustworthy than the government.

Stick that in yer pipe and smoke it.

Regards;

Didn't we go through this a couple of years ago? Large pronouncements about the lethality of second-hand smoke, followed by major debunking where it was shown that the data could not support that conclusion.

Unless they've got some new data, this is just another "executive summary" reciting a forgone conclusion.

Does anyone have a link to the whole thing? (I'm not registering with the ChiTimes to read the whole article.)

Bud,

Check out http://www.bugmenot.com - should get you past the registration hurdle. I'm not motivated enough to check.

My mother smoked from before I was born until it killed her. Five years later and the second hand smoke still hasn't killed me so I say they should butt out.

Sadly, simply look at Great Britan to see where the US is likely headed. Smoking was banned in some houses because government health workers would have to visit the house and they are promised a smoke-free working environment. Another reason against govt. run health care.

For Pete's sake. This is getting downright rediculous. Look, I do not smoke, never have. I think it is a thoroughly foul habit, and it killed both my parents in a horrible manner, but when are these anti-smoking zealots going to learn that we make our own choices about our lives. Get a life! Sheesh!

I've blogged the debunking before here.

Trackback message
Title: Thirdhand Smoke Kills Brain Cells
Excerpt: I was originally going to write a blog entry about what a load of crap “secondhand smoke” is, but now that the Bush Administration’s answer to Joycelyn Elders Surgeon General has formally pronounced any and all debate on the subject t...
Blog name: damnum absque injuria

There are already bans against smoking marijuana or opium IN YOUR OWN HOME, so we're just arguing over how dangerous / harmful / revenue producing a substance is.

The smartest thing the anti tobacco people did was to go after the advertising. Once the media were no longer dependent on the revenue tobacco provided, they could oppose smoking without cost.

Governments can't say the same, because they are so dependent on the tobacco tax money. But once we get "free" health care, the advantage shifts toward a ban.

There are already bans against smoking marijuana or opium IN YOUR OWN HOME, so we're just arguing over how dangerous / harmful / revenue producing a substance is.

Actually, that's a mischaracterization. It is not legal to purchase those intoxicants, so where you smoke/injest/inject them is immaterial.

Tobacco is still legal. Telling property owners that they can't consume a legal substance on their own property (or requiring them to prohibit others from doing so on that property) is a different, but related question.

My favorite part of the story was the implausibly silly claim that there is no safe amount of secondhand smoke. There's a safe amount of everything. The dose makes the poison.