Replies

Well, I don't know if I would go that far. I think that people should have the right to grow it, sell it, smoke it, and so forth. But I also think that restaurant owners should have the right to decide to not allow smoking in their establishments (if they choose) and that companies should have the right to decide to not allow smoking or smoke breaks if they choose, and that insurance companies should have the right to decide to not provide coverage (or provide coverage at much higher rates) to smokers, etc etc. And I think local communities should be able to fine the hell out of litterers.

I can even go for local communities passing laws outlawing smoking in public buildings and so forth.

But I get off the anti-smoking bandwagon when such laws are passed on the state or federal level, and I get off the bandwagon when every restaurant is forced to have non-smoking areas by state or federal law, and I get off the bandwagon when there are efforts to ban smoking outdoors or in the privacy of people's own residences.

Maybe those who used to take part in these haven't found the back room yet? Give em a ping. I think FrancisAndBeans is back too, but I forget his new name.

May as well add this to the mix:

"Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke -- The Washington Post | John Schwartz

A federal court has taken a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's science on secondhand smoke and called it junk. Indeed, a view that is, in EPA Administrator Carol Browner's words, "widely accepted" is not the same as scientific proof. However one feels about the personal hazards of smoking, this ruling is a victory for science and against what Judge Robert Bork has called "authoritarian regulation propelled by moral intimidation."

Reports on the effects of secondhand smoke have long been controversial. While all credible scientific authorities say that cigarette smoking causes cancer, secondhand smoke involves such a low concentration of carcinogens that a strong cancer connection is hard to establish.

A new study, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, found no statistically significant risk to secondhand smoke. The tobacco industry accused the study's sponsors, the World Health Organization, of trying to suppress the findings; WHO said the companies "completely misrepresented" the study.

From what I understand, the court decided this about three years ago. I'm not up to speed on any new studies that would support the WHO position at this time, but if so, even those would have to undergo scrutiny.

In the meantime, I'll puff away and continue to accuse governments at all levels of over-riding the rights of private businesses to make their own smoking or non-smoking decisions and forcing exhorbitant taxes and penalties on smokers and tobacco growers.

'There just doesn't seem to be enough legitimate issues left for the abundance of these control freaks to become involved in these days, but I'm sure they'll find something else to dig their noses into if they fail with the smoke issue.

Thanks for stating my viewpoint almost to a 'T'.

The only thing you left out is that I don't believe that anyone else should have to pay my medical bills for my smoking, nor do I feel an obligation to pay their bills.

Give em a ping. I think FrancisAndBeans is back too, but I forget his new name.

I think it's "dead man running."