This sort of inflammatory hyperbole certainly doesn't help your position.
Smoking as child abuse: the new best friend of neurotic control freaks and junk-science grant addicts everywhere.
Breathe, Madame, just breathe. Remember your blood pressure.
If you read the rest of my posts, you'd see that I haven't made up my mind yet. I believe there is something to be concerned about, and I believe the principles of the Constitution clearly allow for regulating the behavior of others when it affects someone else. Not every issue demands government response, but I believe this one might.
That said, I don't think the feds should be involved AT ALL.
Characterizing my accurate observation as "inflammatory hyperbole" is a common tactic.
Breathe, Madame, just breathe. Remember your blood pressure.
As is condescension. Really, it loses its effectiveness after a while. You might want to rethink this one.
Not every issue demands government response, but I believe this one might.
And what might be the basis for your "belief?"
That said, I don't think the feds should be involved AT ALL.
But you would have no problem with the states legislating that a father smoking in his own home is engaging in child abuse?
Just what is is that you're having trouble making up your mind about?
It seems that it's not the notion, just who should legislate it.
It's a legal product.
It's like saying SUV's need to be regulated for IF an SUV goes head on with a Yugo in an accident the occupants of the Yugo don't stand a chance.
Only when we all drone to lockstep agenda and lose all individual freedom will the the arguments end.
The arguments end won't come for it's human nature to be individual as long as there is two humans or more on the face of the earth.