-
The One Good Thing About Tesla
June 7, 2013 | 19 comments
-
The Golden Years
March 21, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Diesel Dilemmas
March 8, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Electric Lemon Aid
February 19, 2013 | 113 comments
-
The New Dart, in Light of the Old
January 11, 2013 | 48 comments
Car Guy
Unsafe at Any Smoke
You didn’t think they’d stop at just buckle up laws, right?
Mandatory buckle-up laws set the precedent: Even your own body in your own car is no longer your own personal space.
Here’s how it works: The government decides that whatever it is you’re doing is “unsafe” — not specifically in your case, just generally -- maybe, might be, could be — then asserts the legal authority to criminalize whatever it is you’re doing. Which means, it asserts the right to arrest you at gunpoint and threaten you implicitly and perhaps explicitly with lethal violence in order to force you to submit and obey.
Now they’re coming for your cigarettes.
A study just released by the CDC (see here) characterizes second-hand smoke as the latest threat to “safety” — and of course, “the children.” It urges what you’d expect: That it be made illegal to smoke in your own car, at least, if “the children” are present and possibly even if they’re not. For as any smoker knows — as anyone who has shopped for used cars knows — any car that has been smoked in retains the essence of the Marlboro Man for years, even decades after the last butt was crumpled in the ashtray. There is no way to objectively tell whether a car was smoked in last week — or 10 minutes ago. Hence, it is likely that any evidence of smoking — ever — will presently become sufficient excuse for the police to issue tickets, stop people at gunpoint, and perhaps even confiscate their vehicles (as is routinely done when another form of smoke is discovered).
“There is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke,” the CDC study states with authority. Except of course that’s anthead nonsense. Is the CDC really going to claim that, for example, a teenager who buys a used car that was smoked in previously is exposing himself to a measurable danger thereby? Or that if he accepts a ride in an adult’s car — said adult having smoked a cigarette a few hours previously — that the kid has thereby increased his risk of becoming emphysematic or developing lung cancer? It’s absurd.
This isn’t a defense of smoking. It’s a plea for the restoration of sanity. Please, people — how about some perspective — and proportion?
Notice the quasi-religious aspect, too.
You can almost hear the high-pitched sermonizing of these latter day secular Elmer Gantrys. “The car is the only source of exposure for some of these children,” says the CDC’s Brian King. “So if you can reduce the exposure, it’s definitely advantageous for health.”
For liberty (and reasonableness) not so much.
As with the jihad against alcohol — which metastasized from reasonable concern over cavalier attitudes toward drinking and driving into the absurd characterization of any drinking before driving as “drunk” driving — smoking cigarettes anywhere, anytime, has been demonized as an evil on the order of pederasty that must be extirpated by any means necessary. It is no longer enough that smokers refrain from smoking in public areas. If there is any chance whatever that a non-smoker might catch a whiff, then it becomes a matter of public concern. Hence, smokers are already prohibited from smoking even in their own apartments or condos — and yes, even on the steps of their own porches, too. After all, someone might be exposed to second-hand smoke.
Shortly, you will not even be permitted to smoke in your own vehicle, for the same reasons. Doesn’t matter that you have the windows rolled up — and don’t have kids, for that matter. What about the poor attendant at the parking garage who might be exposed to the dangerous remnants of your anti-social choice to smoke? Or the child who might buy your ex-car three years from now? It’s no exaggeration. It’s depressing reality.
And it’d be comical — if it weren’t so tragic.
Peddling cigs to kids is one thing. Criminalizing adults for “exposing” a kid to a distant whiff of this morning’s Lucky Strike (or last year’s Lucky Strike) is quite another. The erosion of our personal space continues apace — and it will not end until we have no personal space left - because in the minds of the collectivist thugs who control this country, there is no such thing as “personal” space. Anything you do could — conceivably — affect someone else. It need not be a specific, demonstrable harm — the standard of long-gone America. Just a theoretical “risk” — however vague, non-specific and generalized — will do just fine. And it is going to become the all-encompassing rationale for total state control within the next 24 months, once Obamacare becomes the duly anointed “constitutional” law of the land.
About the Author
Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (120) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Eric Peters
More Articles From Car Guy
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/10/unsafe-at-any-smoke
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Of Weiner and Women
- Celebrating Our Lady of Paris
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Mike Hawk.| 2.10.12 @ 6:18AM
Sometimes Eric you are full of baloney. In this one you are full of Bovine Flatulence and it's solid form too.
Mac Jehoff| 2.10.12 @ 9:28AM
My guess is Mr. Peters lives in Maryland where the state restricts smoking in commercial vehicles. If you own your truck, you can smoke in it. If you drive for someone else, you can not smoke in your truck.
old white guy| 2.10.12 @ 9:55AM
time to butt out in a bureaurcrat's face.
steve b| 2.10.12 @ 10:18AM
Brilliant response Mike.Nothing but sarcasm-forget the issue of personal freedom.
Phil Kaiser| 2.10.12 @ 10:18AM
This is already LAW in most parts of the state of Maine! You CANNOT drive with a lighted cigarette in your car if you have someone in your car 18 years of age or under! IT'S ALREADY LAW, and has been for three years now. It is one of the reasons I moved away from there, the true "nanny-state." Look it up, people, it's TRUE!
Fredx| 2.11.12 @ 9:14AM
I'm trying hard to feel sorry for you, Mike, but you're just not worth it.
Frank Drackman| 2.10.12 @ 6:32AM
Thats one of the reasons I put a new 6 speed in my 95 Z28...
makes no performance sense, a late model Accord has more Horsies, and even 20 year olds with nose rings and "Teardrop" tats Sneer, burn rubber, and leave me in the dust of there V-6 Stang's, and thats just the chicks....
But its got that "Smoked In" smell that when future generations unearth my baby 20,000 years from now, will still be there, like a musky preserved Wooly Mammoth,
And when caught in the awful summer Atlanta traffic, nothings better than blowing a perfect ring of smoke, that drifts in the jetstream over to some Blow-Dried, probably manicured, sure as hell never pissed on dead A-rabs, Personal Trainer in his Convertible Nazi-mobile, I mean Beemer, or Mini...
Frank "still Smokin" Drackman
Moe Blotz| 2.10.12 @ 9:25AM
"Beemer" is a bike, "Bimmer" is a car.
Quartermaster| 2.10.12 @ 7:45PM
They've been used interchangeably for many years.
Moe Blotz| 2.11.12 @ 8:46AM
Used interchangeably among the confused and uninformed. I have never heard anyone refer to a BMW motorcycle as a "Bimmer". For clarification, please consult the BMW Car Club of America.
Jones| 2.11.12 @ 9:30AM
I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFER TO ANYTHING BY ANY NAME I CHOOSE
Senior Chief| 2.13.12 @ 7:19PM
I suppose you could. The problem is you'll be the only one on the planet who knows what you're talking about. Which I guess is alright, if all you talk to is yourself.
Robert Pinkerton| 2.10.12 @ 6:35AM
I respectfully submit that what the Establishment is doing to us smokers, is closely comparable to what the Nazis tried to do with Jewish Germans by the Nurenberg Laws of 1935.
PolishKnight| 2.10.12 @ 9:29AM
This is why Godwin's law was written. Not because it's inherently wrong to call out the thinking and behavior of Nazism but rather that such a comparison would be overused rendering it useless.
Butch| 2.10.12 @ 6:07PM
If the shoe fits, wear it.
LarryInIowa| 2.11.12 @ 3:22PM
What is the definition of totalitarianism? When the government regulates everything, does that not meet the criteria? How many areas of life in America today are less regulated than they were in 1939 Germany? Hitler didn't moniter fat and sodium content. He didn't mandate what kind of toilets and light bulbs you could use. He didn't require seat belts and motorcycle helmets. Although Hitler hated smoking he didn't try to outlaw or restrict it. These are but a few of the examples where America's nanny staters have reached even beyond the Nazis.
harleyrider1978| 2.13.12 @ 8:52AM
Hitler was a Leftist
Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign
One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.
http://constitutionalistnc.tri.....t/id1.html
PolishKnight| 2.13.12 @ 1:57PM
Hitler was also anti-abortion, guys, so that must mean that pro-lifers are Nazis. Isn't this fun?
Robert Bové| 2.10.12 @ 6:35AM
This piece nails it. What's not to get about creeping state control over every aspect of our lives? And with Obamacare we get the final nail in liberty's coffin--the nationalization of our bodies.
What Liberty| 2.10.12 @ 6:40AM
Observed or rather first noticed in my lifetime was the argument for a smoking area in the airports. "That is all, we promise, it is ever to be." Just a place where some can breathe air not pungent with tobacco. Second noticed was 'health guidelines of nutrition' packaging not more than a few years later. From my viewpoint, seems Mr Peters has watched these and other examples of nanny-ism either morph or evolve into today's over arch entity of protection: the government. How truly sad and, from any other generation's viewpoint, utterly ridiculous and unpredictable.
Appleby| 2.10.12 @ 6:41AM
Isn't it ironic that the same people who are shrieking that babies will die if they see a cigarette butt at 200 yards away downwind in a hurricane are in their next breath shrieking that babies MUST die because they interfere with Mommy's "choice"?
Why don't these peoples' heads explode?
HH| 2.10.12 @ 3:01PM
Best post here and more significant than the article itself. Thank you, Appleby.
TinaB| 2.11.12 @ 9:06AM
Poifect, Appleby. Another perfect analogy from da man.
Back when I was a teacher, all of 4 months ago, I used to upset the lib-teachers (yes, that was most of em) by commenting, whenever that deceptive word 'choice' came up, that it made much more sense to kill a teenager, when they were at their most annoying, rather than a sweet innocent newborn, or almost newborn. They would politely stare at me like I had two heads, and go on with their blather.
Appleby said it all. Don't smoke, don't drink, don't harm the fetuses. But the baby must not harm the mothers or their precious social emotional religious marital financial school (insert one or any of the appropriate words) lives. What idiocy, what evil. Murder in the name of law.
W| 2.11.12 @ 4:34PM
Yes, but there is a no smoking sign in the Planned Parenthood offices.
Paul Kotik| 2.10.12 @ 6:51AM
It is an abolute fact that eating cantelope will KILL YOU unless something lese does first.
albert constantine jr.| 2.10.12 @ 7:46AM
“smoking cigarettes anywhere, anytime, has been demonized as an evil on the order of pederasty that must be extirpated by any means necessary”.
Ironically, the apologists and lobbyists for NAMBLA have been making inroads in helping to “mainstream” pederasty, suggesting that soon one who smokes in front of children will be worse than their “clientele”.
Fredx| 2.11.12 @ 9:20AM
Be careful when the dude says, "Suck on this."
Bill| 2.10.12 @ 7:49AM
Down in Montgomery county, MD, they have a problem with barbeque grilling too. A vegetarian called the cops on my friend's grilling meat.
Frank Drackman| 2.10.12 @ 8:00AM
Best part about comin home from Desert Storm in 91'?
Meeting my family, wait, I didn't have any.
The "World" Airlines flight home.
And "World" was this quasi-private airline that specialized in flying the military, cause as much as the Marines like making there guys fly on C-130's there just aren't enough to go around.
A worn 747, Stewardesses with real Stewardess Uniforms, and best of all,
YOU COULD SMOKE!, and not just in first class, actually, there wasn't really any class, although Officers did get to sit up front, RHIP dontcha know,
and thats the problem with America today, too many REMF's who don't know what RHIP means.
OK, I know you could smoke on all International flights back then, it was still cool.
Frank
albert constantine jr.| 2.10.12 @ 8:16AM
Shortly after I went back off active duty in 91 I was on a NW Airlines NYC-Tokyo flight in the seat on the 747 mid cabin exit door, which was also next to the galley where they stored the beverages. I had two shifts of flight attendants handing me beers and hanging with me in the jump seat for 16 hours. It was the best flight I ever had.
Brian Mc| 2.10.12 @ 8:20AM
USAF back in the late 70's and flew on my share of Hercules and a couple other C's but in all those flights never heard the terms REMF or RHIP. I guess I picked the wrong fighter wing. Smoked Benson and Hedges since I was ten but switched to Pall Malls about ten years ago due to expense.
And an aside, shame about that poor 7th Cavalry; if not for those nasty Winchesters and Henrys, they'd still be alive today.
Frank Drackman| 2.10.12 @ 9:23AM
REMF= Rear Echelon Mother F*****
RHIP= Rank Has Its Priviledges
Brian Mc| 2.10.12 @ 9:55AM
Beeeautiful
Brian Mc| 2.10.12 @ 10:03AM
My last time in a Hercules? On our way back to Langley after some TDY at Nellis for Red Flag I was standing up front sharing a cup with the crew who were busy pointing out landmarks. As we closed up on the Ozarks huge thunderheads loomed and the pilot told me it would get rough and I'd better go sit back down and buckle up. What transpired after that cannot be put into words. Suffice to say, it was the worst experience in a plane I've ever had. Quite a few lost their lunch on that one. Going vertical while strapped to the fuselage has serious drawbacks to one's equilibrium. After touching back down in Virginia, we all kissed the ground with a gratefulness I have failed to achieve since.
Frank Drackman| 2.10.12 @ 10:14AM
The T-34's used up until recently had an Ashtray IN THE COCKPIT!!!!!!!!!!!
it was even on the simulators, although you weren't supposed to smoke in either...
No cigarette lighter though, just like Jake & Elwoods Dodge,
and although they would never admit it, cause it was strictly prohibited, I'm pretty sure a few of the FA-18D pilots enjoyed a few in-flight Cigs, cause the air re-circulates, and once in a while you'd get that distinct intoxicating whiff of a Camel...
Frank "Fix the Cigarette Lighter" Drackman
Fred C. Dobbs| 2.10.12 @ 3:39PM
They taught us about RHIP at Lackland in July 1958.
I learned about REMF later on.
Appleby nailed it!
PolishKnight| 2.10.12 @ 9:37AM
Funny thing, I sympathize with the author's point that the EPA/regulation has been taken to such extremes that it could be impractical (even most non-smokers can get into a cleaned, former smokers' car for short exposures.)
I'm glad that I now can sit in an airplane and not feel ill the whole time and if that means that smokers' "rights" were violated, well, apparently it became necessary to do so in order to protect my rights. That's the problem with so-called conservativism in a nutshell: They don't care about problems and even sneer and call them whiners and then a big government fascist comes along and takes the initiative to clean the problem up and they whine about it. The free market NOT at work!
I would have been perfectly happy with restaurants and bars being allowed to permit smoking provided they provide signage and notices in their advertisements so I don't waste a trip. Smokers told me that was too much of an imposition (and besides, if non-smokers were notified that would be bad for the pro-smoking businesses and that's too MUCH free market.)
John Navratil| 2.11.12 @ 10:07AM
Polish Knight,
Have you ever seen the outflow valves on an airliner? They are about a foot across and are used to maintain pressurization in the aircraft. During the smoking days, they looked as is someone had smeared feces around them when they came in for maintenance checks.
One can open them wide and suck the toupee off the first officer. Unfortunately that requires a lot of bleed air from the turbines which must be cooled and humidified and reduces the turbine thrust (read: costs fuel and money).
I've sat on the tarmac in a Royal Nepal Airlines 737 in Kathmandu and literally could not see from one end of the aircraft to the other for all the smoke. I respect your opinion, but will say that it is physicially possible for smokers and non-smokers to get along in the air. The unwritten reason for banning smoking in airplanes is cost.
PolishKnight| 2.13.12 @ 11:09AM
A history of no-smoking on planes can be found via google here:
http://www.no-smoke.org/learnmore.php?id=186
I don't think it was cost at the time since airplane fuel was relatively cheap by today's standards along with security costs (I used to carry my leatherman onto the plane!)
Quite simply, just as with casinos and restaurants, smokers are simply more aggressive individually about protecting their "rights" than non-smokers. A non-smoker stuck on a smoking flight is unlikely to complain and if they do, the stewardesses and staff will tell them that's just the way it is, deal with it. A smoker walking into a non-smoking place will try to light up no matter what and make a scene. Once they get off the plane, most of them will write nasty letters to the management saying they'll never fly that airline again AND MEAN IT. So it's both part "free market" and businesses that allowed smoking trying to have it both ways by not putting up signage.
The stewards' union above among other industry labor interests wanted the smoking banned and the customers benefitted. One of the few times I must say thank God for unions, eh? And that's the problem with conservatism: When the so-called free market isn't working they turn a blind eye to it and that leaves a political vacuum for socialists to fill. If the free market had provided proper signage for airlines this wouldn't be an issue.
Today... ironically the airline industry is more consumer friendly than ever. Don't like baggage fees? In the past, if this happened, you would have to go to the library and maybe hope to find an outdated book listing them. Today, I can see a list of most of the fees in most decent search engines and pages detailing all the fees and even calculators that do it for me. I can then make a consumer decision what's worth it for me.
This leads us to the point about the direct cost of smoking: it actually cost the businesses MORE to allow it. Heck, that's probably true for restaurants as well. Nicotine and burned sugar addicts, however, are aggressive customers along with the industry that serves them. When I was in Ukraine 5 years ago, I saw a 10 year old boy lighting up. Heroine dealers are more ethical.
NJ Mike| 2.10.12 @ 8:08AM
I'm sorry, I'd love to comment but I am still in awe of Mike Hawk's reasoned, fact heavy rebuttal of Mr. Peter's article.
Such erudition sir!!!!
Mike Hawk| 2.10.12 @ 9:44AM
Trying to raise issues like this vis a vis something you do in your car is paltry compared to the larger issues like in your house or in public. The Feds do not license your car or you to drive it. The state that issued the license can do stupid things. It's up to you to rectify that with your state representaives. I fart in my car, but so far nobody has objected.
Mark| 2.10.12 @ 8:14AM
This is one of the best essays on the subject of anti-smoking hysteria I've seen. It is also THE issue, along with all the nanny state goals and tactics, that caused me to wake up and, over a period time, change my entire political orientation. I noticed that ninety-nine out of a hundred lifestyle control efforts came from the left. I thought, "Wait a minute! If this is what liberal is, I see it no longer has anything to do with liberty--despite the etymology. I'm leaving!" I've never looked back.
donserge| 2.10.12 @ 8:20AM
This is so typical of what the left does in the name of safety, compassion or the public good. There are literally thousands of other examples. The tragedy is that without the least bit of thought, many, many conservatives buy into it.
play nice| 2.11.12 @ 1:27PM
and it's only "fair" that women can now gear up for combat
WeeWillie| 2.10.12 @ 8:41AM
Newspeak. Tobacco smoke lethal; Marijuana smoke perfume of the gods!
Bill| 2.10.12 @ 9:28AM
There was some recent news (seems to have been downplayed; perhaps even the people who are pot proponents are too embarassed to push it) that a 20-year "scientific" study found that pot smoke is actually GOOD for you. The reasoning: because people inhale pot smoke deeply in order to get it into the farthest reaches of our alveoli, it is an exercise for our lungs, and therefore is beneficial. Also, on average, we smoke pot a lot less than we smoke cigarettes, and therefore pot smoke is less common and therefore not as much of a risk (but what about the pot smokers who also smoke cigarettes?).
TinaB| 2.11.12 @ 9:16AM
Now either they've got worse problems, or, they are making inroads to health, because while they take hits they strengthen their lungs, and, when the smoke herb, they aren't smoking ciggies, which they probably would be. A win-win situation. Just a thought.
Bill| 2.13.12 @ 9:25AM
Well, it's an argument; but what about that pesky second-hand pot smoke?
Tina B| 2.13.12 @ 9:41AM
If a pot smoker is smoking pot around other people, they are either smoking with other smokers, or they go into a closed room, away from non-smokers. This is from my memories, you understand. Just sayin'.
Bill| 2.10.12 @ 9:21AM
I find the most fascinating thing about government setting itself up as the arbiter of what is "safe" or "acceptable" is federalism and how the feds manipulate that concept to get standardize and homogenize our nation.
You see, the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate the public health, safety, and welfare. Those powers are "police powers" and are reserved exclusively to the states. The federal government has no police powers. How the federal government exercises police powers is interesting, though. They build the federal interstate highway system, so they invoke the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution to impose seatbelt laws there. They also provide taxpayer money to the states to build state highways, and they impose a condition that the states follow federal dictates about such things as speed limits, seatbelts, etc., in order to qualify for those federal funds.
Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court will say the feds have police powers. The feds have been working on that in case after case for a long, long time.
JimH| 2.10.12 @ 9:26AM
It’s funny how some conservative smokers treat their habit as some form of individualist rebellion against the nanny state. But suggest lighting up a joint and one becomes some sort of Ron Paul supporting menace to society burnout. For myself, I don’t care to indulge in either. I think what a person does with their own body should be their own business. If you want to smoke in your own car, alone or with consenting adults, go ahead. They’re your lungs. However, not with kids in the car. The degree of risk to them may be in dispute, but it is certain it does them no good; and at the least it stinks like hell. I would class smoking (more the fumbling after and lighting a cigarette) as an unnecessary distraction to driving, along with texting, talking on the phone or drinking. I would not ban these activities, but should an accident occur while the driver is partaking the driver should be cited for DWD, driving while distracted.
Frank Drackman| 2.10.12 @ 9:34AM
well too bad your not King and get to make the rules...
"Not with Kids in the Car"??
well my Dad smoked with me in the Car and I turned out all right, just ask my Dad, oh yeah, he died of lung cancer 20 years ago,
I can just see me as a smart alecked 8 yr old telling my dad to put out his Benson & Hedges, I'd still be in Orbit, like one of those 60's Russian satellites.
This is a country where Homo-Sexuals are allowed to adopt children, teach, SERVE AS PHYSICIANS AT MILITARY INDUCTION CENTERS,
and if you don't think a job makin $60/hr where all you do is check some boxes, do a cursory check of the heart, lungs, pupilary reflexes(can't have no glass eyes in the military)and at the end, spread the applicants butt cheeks, is gonna attract Barney Frank lookalikes, your a dumbass.
Frank "Is the Smoking Man in this One" Drackman
JAH666| 2.10.12 @ 9:27AM
The clarion call of our benevolent, busy-body government:
"If it's not good for you, it's bad for you. If it's bad for you, it's illegal."
-Demolition Man
Bill| 2.13.12 @ 9:26AM
A corollary: "If it isn't mandatory, it's forbidden."
Anthony| 2.10.12 @ 9:34AM
Mr. Peters, you date yourself. When was the last time cars came with ashtrays? I'm thinking that nifty looking Fiat spider I had in the '80s. Of course, the ashtrays worked better than the damn engine.
Second Hand Smoke, like its bastard cousin, Anthropogenic Global Warming, is one of the two biggest frauds perpetuated on humankind by the totalitarian left.
For decades, the world was exposed to constant 2nd hand smoke be it restaurants, bars, movies, dorm rooms, the work place, and of course home.
If these charlatans were correct, half of the world would be dead as a result.
Of course, like the polar bears, we have survived, thank you very much.
Now if only we could lure Obozo, with his stash of hidden cigs, and AlGore, get them on an ice floe and send it off into the frozen Artic.
Butch| 2.10.12 @ 2:56PM
Do you know the full story behind the 1991 government conclusion about "second-hand smoke," Anthony? Your second paragraph is true; in fact, it's truer for second-hand smoke than it is for AGW.
Bill| 2.13.12 @ 9:27AM
What about second-hand pot smoke?
Tina B| 2.13.12 @ 9:43AM
There must be some data on that somewhere. Anybody? Anybody?
Bummer Dude Uncool| 2.14.12 @ 8:58PM
The only magic you get when your supposed to be bud bogarts? What's data?
The Big E| 2.10.12 @ 9:37AM
Eric,
Your complaint about the creeping nannyism of the anti-smoking Nazis is about as fresh as a ten year old pizza.
That frog was fully cooked long ago.
Frank Drackman| 2.10.12 @ 10:06AM
@ Big E
referring to one's self as "Big" is about as fresh as a Happy Day's re-run.
The kids today use symbols, like that scamp Ke$ha,
and the anti-smoking Nazi's ARE getting worse, just try smoking in a rental car now-a-days, and they'll slap you with a $250 charge, which I was rich enough to afford, cause it'd be fun to smoke in a new Prius and know those tight-ass leftie's be smellin that Tampa Nugget for the whole 80,000 mile service life...
Frank "Smoke on the Water" Drackman
Gr0w1er601| 2.10.12 @ 9:42AM
I remember here in Colorado in order to get the so-called 'Seatbelt Law' out of committee it was specifically written that the police could not stop you solely for not buckling up. Guess what, Buckwheats, '1984' has arrived...
DatsunMark| 2.10.12 @ 10:28AM
PJ O'Rourke said in one of his books that America would not become a socialist/communist country via some sort of revolution but we would turn over our freedom in a *safety first* ninny slow takeover of our lives by those who know better than us.
Paul Kotik| 2.10.12 @ 10:53AM
And like Little Barry really quit smoking? The odds are against it. Far more likely he's deployed the vast powers of the Executive to cast a viel of secrecy over his sneaked smokes.
Paul McGrath| 2.10.12 @ 11:10AM
And you can bet the bastid smokes in his limousine as well. With or without the brats.
cuban pete| 2.10.12 @ 5:20PM
I'll bet the Oval office is the only indoor space in DC where you can smoke.
Kingofthenet| 2.10.12 @ 11:23AM
When the author opens with his piece with an attack on Seat-belt Laws, a law that has saved MILLIONS of lives, with a unfounded lie that people who don't buckle up are quote 'being arrested at gunpoint', name ONE case in all ANY state ever, where that was the SOLE reason someone was arrested at 'gunpoint'. I am a smoker but have horrible memories of driving with my Parents on long Road Trips and getting sick from my Dad's smoking, it was a different time than, but there is NO excuse today.
albert constantine jr| 2.10.12 @ 12:26PM
If I give you one example, will you promise never to post here again?
irish19| 2.10.12 @ 11:49PM
I do police reports for a local paper and have seen any number of reports where vehicles were pulled over solely for seatbelt violations. State law now covers passengers as well.
John Navratil| 2.11.12 @ 10:11AM
Kingofthenet,
Do you know why we have airbags? To get rid of seatbelts! Still got 'em and a "Click it or ticket" law, to boot. You gotta' love that government and it's respect for freedom.
I'll be pleased to here what you say to your children when the aren't raising you grandchildren according to your own superior ideals.
skip| 2.11.12 @ 12:32PM
One of us has horrible memories of getting sick from cigarette smoke in an automobile with windows, smokes cigarettes, and supports totalitarianism.
One of us remembers walking away from a spectacular crash in a car with seat belts, lives only because no seat belt was worn, and supports personal accountability.
Guess which one is the liberal and which one is the conservative.
W| 2.10.12 @ 12:37PM
Rockford smoked cigarettes and I don't remember any seatbetls.
Frank Drackman| 2.10.12 @ 12:56PM
Remember that one episode where Jimmy had the 74' Firebird, the one with the seatbelt interlocks, and that moron Angel led him into an ambush, and Jimmy jumped in the Bird' and it wouldn't start up?
Rockford was da Man.
albert constantine jr.| 2.10.12 @ 9:44PM
Rockford smoked, drove too fast, and I don't remember seeing him buckle up either. I don't remember the Firebird not starting up, though, it was in for so much body work, I never remember him getting a tune up or oil change.
Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 2.10.12 @ 3:31PM
To hell with the CDC and the Federal government. A bunch of fascists they are. The State Department complains about Russia being authoritarian, but at least the Russian government doesn't tell its citizens where they can and cannot smoke a cigarette. I am sick and tired of do gooder American liberals who always think they have to be your second mother and tell you what's good for you.
blaircr64| 2.10.12 @ 3:59PM
Growing up the child of smokers I gotta say I don't regret at all the change in societal attitudes towards smoking that recognizes my right not to have to suffocate in a cloud of noxious fumes. I'm so tired of hearing smokers complain about 'personal freedom' and their right to smoke in public places like restaurants and airplanes...what about my right to be in the same public place and not have to breathe the crap coming out of your mouth? Growing up I hated the thought of every car trip...dreading the time when I knew I'd be trapped in poison filled box and have to suffer in silence. The worst part? I think my parents hated it too, they were just too addicted by a cynical industry peddling poison to a generation of Americans intentionally hooked by manipulating one of the most addictive chemicals on the planet. I'll never forget the first time someone pointed out that my parents must smoke, because I smelled. Every time I see a smoke filled car with children inside I know
their suffering. So before lamenting the 'rights of smokers' I'll celebrate the rights of the non-smoker. The irony is that government wouldn't have to get involved at all if smoking weren't an addiction that drives otherwise considerate adults to the selfish belief that somehow the exercise of their habit doesn't impact others. It does. Personal freedom - sure, but in this case there are 2 sides to that coin.
Frank Drackman| 2.10.12 @ 4:55PM
"Poison Filled Box"??
oh you mean your Mom's Va-J-J...
Yeah, we all had tough childhoods, I went from a North Dakota Pubic School with a White Supremecist PE Teacher and I may be the only Jewish kid in America who gets 6th grade flashbacks when he hears the "Horst Wessel Lied"to an Intergrated Virgina Pubic School that was about as Intergrated as a combination BET show/NBA game/Public Enemy Concert,
and do I complain about it? YES!, I mean NO? cause a few years later, I was the only White Boy who could do the Moon Walk...
So Suck it up, Pussy!
Frank
blaircr64| 2.10.12 @ 5:11PM
Wow, I can't tell if you're trying deliberately to be offensive, or if your just ignorant. Probably both. I thought about spending more than 30 seconds in responding to your screed, but, then again, since you don't seem to be capable of putting together a cogent reply with anything resembling an original thought, I don' think it would be worth the trouble.
Butch| 2.10.12 @ 6:12PM
His is funny; it's your piece that's a screed. Reread that language of yours and get some help.
TinaB| 2.11.12 @ 9:37AM
Go suck an egg, blaircr64. Frank is a veritable wit compared to you.
W| 2.11.12 @ 4:36PM
Frank is funny and likes Rockford. Get lost.
Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 2.10.12 @ 5:38PM
Blair I am a smoker and a father of two small children. I do not smoke in the car with my children and I don't even smoke in the house. However it is not the governments place to regulate whether I can smoke in the car or the house with my children or not. It's simply not their place. I am the parent not the government. I know what's best for my children not you and not the government. This country works best when everyone the government included minds their own business. Political freedoms mean nothing if you don't have the freedom to decide what's best for your family.
James Solbakken | 2.10.12 @ 6:17PM
Tell me why I always loved the smell of good tobacco smoke? Especially pipe smoke, not as much cigar smoke, but it was like incense to me. So to each his own, unless you insist on having everyone live the way YOU want them to live.
chemman| 2.10.12 @ 6:20PM
My siblings and I grew up with parents that smoked 2 packs a day. Adding insult to injury it was in the greater Los Angeles basin during the worderful smog years of 1955 - 1970. Funny thing though is that none of us as of this year have any health issues even marginally related to tobacco smoke. So whatever minute risk there is it isn't greater enough to strip more freedoms from individuals.
TinaB| 2.11.12 @ 9:44AM
Bravo, well said. I remember SoCal in the early 60s. School would be cancelled in September for a day or two due to very painful smog. We had daily smog alerts.
I have also been married to a smoker and lived with them. My old retired self has lungs that sound just fine, according to my dr.
scotchieguy| 2.11.12 @ 1:09PM
That doesn't mean there are people who are not affected. What if the kid has asthma? I am not in favor of much of the nannyism of the fed govt, but how can it be right for a kid to have to breath that crap? I can't believe the arrogance of some of you posters. It is this naive attitude that "it didn't affect me, so screw everyone else." You are probably the same ones who thought smog was no big deal in the 50s and 60s. In fact, some of you clowns actually seem proud of living back in the smog-days of L.A. Truly unreal! Were you also proud of how many whuppins' from your daddy's belt you were able to "survive" from?
Tina B| 2.11.12 @ 5:34PM
Scotchie, don't get your panties in a wad. I agree, people smoking around asthmatics was not healthy for the asthmatics.
However, it is not arrogance nor is it naivity to say get the Fed. Gov't out of our everyday lives, and do it now. It must be nice to be you, as I am sure you have no bad habits that would harm another in any way, shape or form.
But I am flawed, and greatly so. I struggle with many of my habits to this day. I don't look for asthmatics, but if I were the parent of one, I'd avoid smokers when with my child. Best I can tell ya.
Now the part about being proud to have survived the 1960s smog, the era of the hallucinogens, make "Love" not War, radical feminism, partying like it was 1999, cocaine all around, a divorce, an out-of-wedlock pregnancy and subsequent adoption (and then recently locating my third child), and so much more it hurts to remember some of it, the pride is relateed to the survival part. And as soon as I feel that pride, I remember it was only my parents' prayers and an Almighty and merciful God that got me here. And, eventually, my own prayers and those of my family today.
I laugh now about all the cautions we take in the name of survival. I have no problem with my friends or family smoking around me, or what they smoke in their own rooms. We all gotta die from somethin.
I believe my days are numbered by the Lord, and nothing you or anyone else does to me will change that date one bit. I have heard stories about invisible beings (angels maybe) guarding people from danger in times of need. I know a God who doesn't sleep or slumber. But that is me.
I don't know who you or anyone else knows well enough and powerful enough to protect you around smokers or murderers or whoever or whatever. I will try to never smoke in your face, though.
Richard Baker| 2.10.12 @ 7:50PM
This nanny-state nonsense is pushed by the Boomers who seem to be, as a group, the most terrified generation in US history. Hard to believe that a generation which came from the WWII and Korean War vets could grow up to be such pansies. That's what I think of MY generation. 59 years old.
Mike Hawk.| 2.10.12 @ 8:01PM
Screw You. This Boomer and many more do not go along with the nanny state. However, it is represented by gummint telling you what kind of car to drive and what kind of gas to put in it, not by telling you to wear a seatbelt. It is represented by redistribution of wealth and over regulation. We of that group who rail against this are not in tune with our counterparts who do. We resist them. Too many of the younger crowd go along and do not listen to what our experience is telling them. Again, screw you.
aware| 2.11.12 @ 9:04AM
You and those Boomers that "did not go along with the nanny state" must be an almost infinitesimally microscopic segment, judging from the unbroken victorious march of the State for the last 50 years.
Maybe you could enlighten me with recounting one of your successful beat backs, or even a rearguard action, of the Leviathan during this period.
John Navratil| 2.11.12 @ 10:14AM
aware,
Mid-term 2010 was a start. It remains to be seen what November will bring. History does not militate for a good outcome, however.
Dick Nome| 2.11.12 @ 10:31AM
It's called the Tea Party junior.
Mike Hawk| 2.11.12 @ 10:57AM
Affirmative that. The Occupy crowd are largly junior's generation while Tea Party Patriots are full of older citizens including 'Boomers'. The mind numbed skulls full of mush are youngsters and unfotunately too many able to vote without any maturity gained out of HS.
aware| 2.11.12 @ 12:57PM
"Tea Party", don't make me laugh! What ever promise it had was subverted by Republican insiders almost immediately. If they really want to be a game changer they would cut all ties to the Republican Party and form a 3rd party.
If the war with the Republican Party could ever be won, smashing the commies of the Left would be child's play.
Immediate acquiescence to the debt ceiling increases and passing NDAA just makes me a bit cynical on what the "Tea Party" gets done at the end of the day.
John Navratil| 2.11.12 @ 6:13PM
aware,
You didn't come for the conversation, did you?
JimH| 2.11.12 @ 9:18AM
This is just speculation mind you, but I wonder if any of what are regarded as boomer attitudes such as self indulgence and a tendency toward immediate gratification are a result of growing of during the cold war when nuclear annihilation was thought a real possibility. I still remember the elementary school air raids; duck and cover.
Lloyd Daub| 2.11.12 @ 12:38AM
What's next? Car helmets?
Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 2.11.12 @ 2:09AM
Car Helmets...yes absolutely. Then a ban on smoking in your home. Actually they'll probably make you install cigarette smoke detectors that will alert the police department if your smoking a cigarette in your home.
aware| 2.11.12 @ 7:34AM
Here is an even better Eric Peters article you wouldn't see reprinted here for obvious reasons:
http://epautos.com/2012/02/10/the-master-culture/
Guaranteed to drive neo cons insane.
Jones| 2.11.12 @ 9:33AM
2nd hand smoke bad; 1 million abortions a year okay.
what's wrong with this picture?
John Navratil| 2.11.12 @ 10:17AM
Jones,
Fetuses don't vote, women do. Kids are being indoctrinated in government schools to vote properly; we can't have them thinking independently and wandering of the reservation. Second hand smoke is just another lesson on to benevolence of government intervention. Capiche?
bluecollarbytes| 2.11.12 @ 9:57AM
What about fast food drive thrus, starbuckies, and 'intellectuals' engrossed in 'All Things Considered'?
It's frightening out there
John Navratil| 2.11.12 @ 10:19AM
"'intellectuals' engrossed in 'All Things Considered'"?
Oxymoron... or maybe just moron.
PETE66| 2.11.12 @ 11:19AM
I'm absolutely on board with most posters here about the attacks on our personal freedoms....helmet , seat belt and the multitude of other laws for "our own protection". But , smoking is a different beast here. Basically....you smokers stink! Your homes, your cars, you personally. Most of you are probably very nice , smart and generally good people. but , us non-smokers make no distinction between smokers and someone with nasty body oder. The difference being, Mr. B O can shower up and put some Speed Stick on. Smokers still stink after the showering, teeth brushing, deodorant application, and probably some type of cologne or perfume thrown on as well. Other than "it's my right to smoke", why people smoke in the first place. And feel they have the right to share the stink, is a far more interesting and important discussion I think. Just saying........?
C. S. P. Schofield| 2.11.12 @ 2:20PM
And you feel free to say this because for decades now the Party Line has been that smokers are awful.. Baaa like a sheep for the nice people.
You would never think to complain about somebody's body odour, although a scabrous homeless person who carries hepatitis is a lot bigger risk to your health than the lingering smell of a Lucky Strike.
The persecution of smokers is based on the idea that it is OK to ostracise a group because their voluntary behaviour is annoying to you and they might, just possibly, affect your health.
Any sexually active Gay male who is OK with this hasn't given it much thought.
Concrete Cowboy| 2.11.12 @ 6:27PM
This article gives me an idea. What will the smoke police do when I invent and market incense that smells like cigarette smoke?
Try to prosecute me. It's incense and maybe I like the smell of cigarettes. It's none of the Courts beeswax what I like.
PolishKnight| 2.13.12 @ 2:37PM
One thing as a sensitive non-smoker I observed is that smokers are kind of like farters: They love the smell of their own smoke but dislike someone else's. So when one of them stops for a moment another one quickly senses the fresh air and lights up. So as a non-smoker, it's like there's a continuous chimney in the room.
So it's funny to walk by airport smoke lounges and it looks like something out of Cheech and Chong: The rooms are PACKED with smoke and when they emerge their clothing and hair seems to reek of it. If you want to "enjoy" incense that smells like cig smoke just for the fun of it, good luck.
Joe Nuts| 2.11.12 @ 7:14PM
I can't wait for the second hand fart law.
Dick Nome| 2.12.12 @ 8:32PM
My Ex will be all for that one.
POST American| 2.11.12 @ 10:55PM
--MEANWHILE--
--Moves afoot to BAN and even criminalize
the unedited, King James Bible (SEE ACLU)
----and to make Gates's RED Chinese made,
weaponized injections MANDATORY
-------as NO ONE DARES take up the
stealth genocide issue via GMO food
--------even as CHEM-trails continues
to knit our skies and STILL mixed with
massive fallout from FUKISHIMA
--------------and as QE 3 is coming
------------------and as NDAA 1021 overturns
the Cosntitution ----and authorizes the secret
arrest, EXILE, disappearance and execution
of American citizens ---ANYWHERE
AS NO ONE DARES call the Emperor's
nakedness as the criminal class, of which
he is, -----is identified.
AS, in this, the 4th decade of the Globalist
-----------CFR RED China handover ----------
----------------and TREASON OP---------------
--NO ONE DARES BRING UP THE WORD---
---------------------TREASON----------------------
And scarecly a PEEP about Pelosi
calling for --MORE--- monitoring and
surveillance during her visit to RED China
-------and sitting justice Ginzburg dumps
the US Constitution before the entire world
while visiting the very Mecca of capstone
creepdom -------'E--Jipped'.
"Let us ALL die ---or let's do it."
-Thomas Carlysle
----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------
--------------------------TIME TO MOVE---------------
Plowjocky| 2.11.12 @ 11:34PM
Ok I am tired of LIBERALS telling me what I can and cannot do.Made Resturantes and bars pay extra money so they could have extra smokeing areas(Instead of just putting un a sign saying this is a smokeing establishment.Ok Non smokers says smokeing , find somewhere else for your party.Says non smokeing,Smokers same for you.Non-Smokers cant even see how stupid they are for this.TOMORROW its your vice their comeing for.
shipley130| 2.12.12 @ 3:38PM
If they go down that road, then Air Force One should be permanently grounded, too.
noone| 2.12.12 @ 4:58PM
This administration is beginning to paraphrase the Communist Manifesto. If it walks like a Communist and talks like a Communist...
harleyrider1978| 2.13.12 @ 8:53AM
They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.
It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.
Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?
...
The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.
Why not speak up earlier?
As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.
Le Parisien
...
harleyrider1978| 2.13.12 @ 8:54AM
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger
Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher:
http://www.heartland
.org/policybot/resul
ts/23399/Scientific_
Evidence_Sho...
myth-of-second-hand-
smoke
http://yourdoctorsor
ders.com/2009/01/the
-myth-of-second-hand
-smoke
harleyrider1978| 2.13.12 @ 8:55AM
BS Alert: The 'third-hand smoke' hoax
http://www.examiner.com/public.....smoke-hoax
The thirdhand smoke scam
http://velvetgloveironfist.blo.....-scam.html
Tina B| 2.13.12 @ 9:58AM
Thanks for the links to some real data.