Watching TV is bad for children too. It has been shown to cause ADD. Therefore, no TV should be allowed in homes where there are children under the age of 18. Also, potato chips make you fat which can lead to heart disease. Therefore, no potato chips should be allowed in homes with children under the age of 18. And how many children are injured when they fall down a flight of stairs. No children shall be allowed to live in homes with stairs. Do you get my point? JB, you are talking about people's freedom to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes. Following your advice would mean people who smoke would have to go find a place to hide when they smoke. They couldn't smoke outside in plain view because a teenager might decide to cruise by. That is just ridiculous. I get your point but everytime a new law is created, we lose a freedom. Even though your intentions are good, people who clamour for new laws are causing our freedoms to be eroded. Trust me, I don't want parents to show their kids rated R movies, but I don't believe that people with children should have access to television blocked because of my beliefs.

I agree that 2nd hand smoke is bad for children and people who allow children to breath 2nd hand smoke are idiots. As a non-smoker, I can't stand breathing 2nd hand smoke.

However, I get tired of this "nanny state" mentality that the government has to oversee every detail of our lives. How would you enforce such a law? Install smoke detectors that report to the cops when someone lights up in their house? As the other writer said, I'm sure your intentions are good, but keep the government out of my house thank you. An alternate solution would be to provide parents with educational materials about the harm of 2nd hand smoke exposure to children.

"An alternate solution would be to provide parents with educational materials about the harm of 2nd hand smoke exposure to children."

Bah. Save my tax dollars.

I'm skeptical that 2nd hand smoke is really that dangerous. The WHO did a study a few years back to try to link 2nd hand smoke to cancer, but the results were inconclusive, and the study results were suppressed. I have yet to see any significant scientific data linking 2nd hand smoke and cancer/lung disease.

I have no problem with smoking outdoors or even in their cars except for the trash many thoughtless or outright inconsiderate smokers leave behind. (Trash that my tax dollars goes to clean from our streets, lawns, and streams.) I never go a day that I don't see a smoker throwing cigarette butts, foil, and empty packs out car windows. Do new cars not have ash trays? My van is a 1978 but the ash tray was standard equipment.

Fact is: regardless of how one feels about tobacco rights, smokers have done nothing to prevent these problems they now face. If smokers would just try to act like responsible citizens they might see attitudes change or at least lighten among nonsmokers. You've brought it on yourselves and there's no arguing the point.

I used to be a smoker (3 packs a day when I quit) and I never let even one cigarette butt or empty cigarette pack hit the ground-- ever. If more smokers would learn to respect the rights of nonsmokers their problems wouldn't be as bad as they've become or as bad as they're going to be.

J,

Maybe I should have clarified: Not your tax dollars, but force the big eeeeviilll tobacco companies to pay for it!! Hell they have been soaked for everything else. Put a little brochure in all the baby goodies they give you in a hospital.

Mr. T -- Kids don't get sick from being near a bag of potato chips. They do get sick from having smoke blown in their faces.

Mr. T, can you point me to an objective, scientific study that says that conclusively?

Oops, that was meant for nonsmoker, not Mr. T.

Finally found that World Health Organization study that was done a few years back. From the UK Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/03/08/wtob08.html

I keep reading all these comments about smokers' "rights". Such a thing does not exist. I did extensive research on the subject for a thesis while in college (more than several years ago). There are no laws or printed documents that "gives" a smoker the "right" to smoke.

Prior to a few years ago there were no laws forbidding smoking in public places even though information on the hazards of smoking has been available for more than forty years.

Each year we have acquired more information about the harmful effects of smoking and second-hand smoke through scientific research (Google offers over 300,000 sites on this subject). If one chooses to ignore or deny all this "proof", as an adult, that is one's right. But why would anyone even consider for a split second endangering the health of any child with second-hand smoke?

As one of the previous responders said, all this anti-smoking backlash is something you smokers brought on yourselves. Your lack of respect for how non-smokers feel is nothing short of hedonistic arrogance.

No a one of you smokers has the "right" to pollute my lungs or space with the heinous stench your smokes cause. It has been your "don't care" attitude regarding other peoples health that has brought us to this point. Accept responsibility!

Public smoking and public drinking are separate issues and I'm more than a little weary of hearing smokers whine about their persecution while drinkers seem to be immune to criticism. Although I don't condone drinking to an excess, I can sit beside a person who drinks until they are blue in the face without it being harmful to me. I can't say the same about a smoker within twenty feet of me. The best way I have ever heard this expressed is: having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool.

Parents who expose their children to second-hand smoke are guilty of child abuse and don't deserve to have them. They are shortening the live(s)of said children and are creating life long health problems for them. For these parents to claim they love their children reminds me of the abuser who says "I love you" while abusing their victim.
It is a contradiction in terms.

"I keep reading all these comments about smokers' "rights". Such a thing does not exist. I did extensive research on the subject for a thesis while in college (more than several years ago). There are no laws or printed documents that "gives" a smoker the "right" to smoke."

Your problem is that you assume rights only exist when they are published or granted by some authority. Rights are not "given". Priveleges are given. Big difference.

I wouldn't go into your house and smoke if you told me not to. I wouldn't go into your pool and pee if you told me not to. But I wouldn't make a law that said no one could do so if they wanted to in their own house or pool or restaurant.

By the way Yvonne, can you give me a link to one of those thousands of google studies that conclusively links 2nd hand smoke and lung disease? One that is a real scientific study, preferably something peer-reviewed if you can find it. Thanks.

Mr. Sheridan, I could give you links galore but it would be an exercise in futility. You apparently (by your posts) are one of those individuals who choose to deny or ignore all the evidence that does not suppore your point of view. Besides, it is up to you to take responsibility for your own education.

Smokers have done their own thing, with blatant disregard for anyone else, for so long they have developed a sense of "entitlement". Now non-smokers are banning together to try to make our earth healthier for everyone. I say it's long overdue.

Your problem is you can't distinguish the difference between a private home or pool and a public restaurant. Sure, restaurants are privately owned but used by the public.

The government already tells us what we can and can't do with our own property re rentals, land use, building, etc so why not restaurant owners? When a person applies for a permit to open a restaurant, they KNOW in advance they are going to have to conform to government regulations. It's just the way things are done here in America. And our government IS responsible to protect us (the public) from folks who seek to do us harm, even in our own United States.

Yvonne,

Quite the contrary. I am quite open-minded and anxious to look at any information you have about the harmfulness of 2nd hand smoke. I readily admit that I may be wrong about you may be right. I am in no fashion an expert on health. I just have not seen any hard evidence heretofore supporting the link between 2nd hand smoke and lung disease. And, like that WHO study that I linked says, it has always seemed to me that the case for 2nd hand smoke causing health problems is more political than it is scientific.

You were the one that said there are all these cases supporting your claim. I provided a link to a story supporting my supposition. I'd say the burden of proof is on you, not on me, to do the same for your supposition.

The fact that restaurants are used by the public is irrelevant. They are still private property, and the property owner owns all the rights. The government has no right to cram your wishes down the property owners throat. Those government regulations you spoke of are wrong.

But I do agree with the last sentence that you wrote. " And our government IS responsible to protect us (the public) from folks who seek to do us harm, even in our own United States." If someone broke into your house or restaurant and started smoking, the government should protect you. And if someone held a gun to your head and forced you to sit still while someone smoked next to you, the government should protect you. But as long as there is no use of force, then you should just leave and go to your own private property instead of trying to make others' as you would have it.

Have you, Mr. Sheridan, ever seen the lungs of a non-smoker and a smoker disected? Well, I have and I can tell you it is all the "proof" I need. The lungs not exposed to a carcinogen A (that would be smoke) are fleshy-looking and pliable, much like a sponge. On the other hand, the lungs of the smoker are a deep charcoal gray (almost black) and are stiff and hard, more like lava.

The Surgeon General, the CDC, the Cancer Society, the EPA and many more have done extensive research on the hazards of smoking and second hand smoke. Anyone who reads such concrete evidence and continues to deny it is his/her own worst enemy.

Would you have quams about eating in a restaurant that has no health grade because it is never inspected by the health department? Would you have a problem being in a public place (albeit privately owned) that has no maximum capacity or weight limit posted? What about breathing the air from burning tires?

The government's intervention in preventing health hazards is not only warranted (in my opinion)but is wanted by a large number of non-smokers--even in privately owned businesses.

You are in error about property owners owning all the rights (to their property). In actuality, whether right or wrong, we cannot do what we damn well please with our own property. Just ask any landlord, business owner or attorney.

Like it or not, Mr. Sheridan, smokers "rights" are not for the common good and will be limited in the near future.

"I keep reading all these comments about smokers' "rights". Such a thing does not exist. I did extensive research on the subject for a thesis while in college (more than several years ago). There are no laws or printed documents that "gives" a smoker the "right" to smoke."

Yvonne, your right to eat does not exist. Show me the law that grants you your right to eat. Neither do you have a right to travel, watch movies, or play bridge. Show me the document that grants you those rights.

But to be serious now, Rusty is correct. Rights are inherent in people. People automatically have rights simply because they are human beings. Rights can neither be granted nor taken away.

I will agree with you, however, that secondhand smoke is dangerous. I think that's only common sense.

But I'll tell you that you're 100% wrong about private property. You say that it is private, but it's open to the public. Right. It's open to the public so long as the public follows the rules of the house. The owner can serve or refuse to serve whomever he wishes. He can allow people to do whatever they want inside his establishment so long as they do not violate anyone's rights. But you have no right to occupy someone else's private property and demand that it be smoke-free. If I invite you into my house and I start smoking and you demand that I stop, I will quickly show you the door. A restaurant is no different.

I actually want smoke-free restaurants myself, but I know I have no right to violate the rights of restaurant owners. So if I want to do something about smoke in restaurants, I'll boycott those who allow smoking. Nonsmokers certainly outnumber smokers. If enough nonsmokers would simply begin to boycott restaurants that allow smoking, I'm sure it wouldn't be long before all restaurants were smoke-free on a voluntary basis.

Yvonne,

Have you seen a side-by-side comparison of a nonsmoker's lung who was not exposed to 2nd hand smoke, and a nonsmoker's lung who was exposed to 2nd hand smoke? Is the coloration noticible there? I'm not arguing the health effects of smoking vs. nonsmoking. I'm arguing the health effects of 2nd hand smoke. In an earlier thread, Brian provided me with links to a couple of studies about 2nd hand smoke. I don't know why you are so reluctant to do the same, instead diverting the argument to the color of a smoker's lungs.

"Would you have quams about eating in a restaurant that has no health grade because it is never inspected by the health department? Would you have a problem being in a public place (albeit privately owned) that has no maximum capacity or weight limit posted? What about breathing the air from burning tires?"

No, I would have no qualms about eating in said restaurant. I eat in my own kitchen all the time, and it has never been inspected by the health dept. I would wager I have even eaten in some mom and pop restaurants out in the country that were not inspected. But if the food sucked or if I got sick, I wouldn't go back, and the restaurant would have to clean up in order to stay in business. The free market works. The same logic holds true for the other regulations you spoke of. For heaven's sake, we don't need a government enforced regulatory agency overseeing every little cotton picking thing we do. We're free Americans, for goodness's sake.

And regarding "rights for the common good": irrelevant. Rights are for individuals' good, not common or public good. There is no such thing as a "public right" or "community right". Individual rights are tangible and defensible. Community rights are abstract and indefensible. Individual rights are the only ones governments should protect.

Joe Jackson, one of my favorite musicians, has written a fine article that summarizes the argument against smoking intolerance and about the issue of second hand smoke. I was impressed. I knew from his songs he was a brainy guy, but he is also very persuasive in his essays.

http://www.joejackson.com/smokingissue.htm