JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2006/06/oh-for.html (11 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1151509121-510954  tkdkerry at Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:38:41 +0000

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.

jsid-1151513501-510970  Bilgeman at Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:51:41 +0000

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.


jsid-1151514961-510972  bud at Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:16:01 +0000

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.)

jsid-1151516063-510975  KCSteve at Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:34:23 +0000


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.

jsid-1151518069-510976  Roger Thompson at Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:07:49 +0000

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.

jsid-1151533539-511002  Atillainohio at Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:25:39 +0000

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!

jsid-1151589671-512386  princewally at Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:01:11 +0000

I've blogged the debunking before here.

jsid-1151596599-432830  Trackback at Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:56:39 +0000

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

jsid-1151596767-512395  staghounds at Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:59:27 +0000

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.

jsid-1151601887-512406  Kevin Baker at Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:24:47 +0000

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.

jsid-1151614481-512422  Xrlq at Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:54:41 +0000

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.

 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>