Ban Smoking in Public Housing

NEWSWEEK
Published Jun 27, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jul 13, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: smoke-screen.org @ 08/22/2009 4:52:12 PM

    Couldn't agree with you more! I invite you to please take a few moments
    to take a look and share it with those you love and care about and help them quit the nasty ugly habit.

    http://www.smoke-screen.org

    Thank you

  • Posted By: Michael J. McFadden @ 07/14/2009 11:11:00 AM

    Mr. Repace, anyone who reads my post carefully will find that I most certainly did NOT set up a straw man argument: my model actually bends over backward to avoid it. I assumed a full third of the restaurant population to be heavy active smokers, smoking twice an hour during their 16 waking hours, and I also assumed they would smoke at this heavy rate all through their "three hour nice restaurant meal." Additionally, my ventilation rate of 6 changes per hour is less than half the standard rate prescribed for such settings by ASHRAE.


    If I had used a *realistic* model, the ultimate exposure would have been less than a quarter of that "100 ug/m3" (which, in any event, is very specifically defined as "unhealthy" only for 24 hour continuous exposures in OUTDOOR air with the fundamental assumption that indoor exposures during air pollution episodes will be even worse.)


    Even the much higher exposures have never been defined as a health problem for bar/restaurant workers by OSHA despite the fact that OSHA spent years examining the question. Your description of this as a "festering problem" shows the fundamental bias you are operating under and which so strongly pervades all your work. Extending this sort of nonsense to the far lower exposures experienced in multi-unit dwellings simply moves the field from nonsense into outright insanity.


    Michael J. McFadden,
    Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

  • Posted By: James Repace @ 07/11/2009 9:22:34 AM

    Reply to Mc Fadden:

    Mr. Mc Fadden, a fixture on ???smokers??? rights??? websites, sets up a straw man argument. For the case he describes, restaurant volume 400 cubic meters, 6 air changes per hour, and 10 smokers, the expected respirable particulate (RSP) concentration would be 90 micrograms per cubic meter above background. Assuming a typical outdoor background of 10 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), The federal air quality index, which uses a 3-hour running average, about the duration of a nice restaurant meal, describes an RSP concentration of 100 ug/m3 as ???unhealthy air.??? Not something you???d want your family exposed to. Secondly, very few restaurants would have ventilation rates that generous ??? 1 or 2 air changes per hour would be more likely, increasing the exposure by factors of 3 to 6-fold, well into the ???hazardous??? air pollution range, a major occupational health problem for restaurant workers in many states without comprehensive smoke-free laws. Thirdly, secondhand smoke in multifamily dwellings is at best a major nuisance, and at worst puts nonsmoking neighbors with respiratory disease in the hospital. Unfortunately, Departments of Public Health in cities and states have long ignored this festering problem. Finally, it is well known in the indoor air research community that it is impossible to keep tobacco smoke from penetrating into neighboring apartments. Dr. Winnickoff is dead right ??? it is long past time to end smoking in multi-family dwellings.

    James Repace
    Visiting Asst. Professor, Tufts University School of Medicine
    and Repace Associates, Inc.


  • Posted By: Michael J. McFadden @ 07/01/2009 11:02:43 PM

    Don56 noted how they play up secondhand smoke with the "Save The Children!" propaganda card. See how it plays when it concerns things like baby shampoo! Below is an unpublished letter to the Washington Post. Think about how it relates to the concerns about the wisps of smoke from one apartment drifting to another... which is probably an exposure of less than a hundredth of that of the smoky bar below:

    ===

    Your 03/13 "Probable Carcinogens Found in Baby Toiletries" noted formaldehyde concentrations in baby shampoo of up to 610 parts per million(ppm). This was described as "tiny" or "low" amounts of the chemical.

    But let's consider a rather small (400 cubic meters) and relatively poorly ventilated (6 air-changes/hour) restaurant, with 30 customers, ten of whom light up twice per hour. Would you be worried about taking a child there after all the frightening ads and news stories about things like formaldehyde in cigarette smoke? You'd probably whisk your baby out of there faster than a waiter could pick up a tip.

    According to the Surgeon General's figures those ten smokers will emit a total of 17 mg of formaldehyde into the air per hour. That formaldehyde is diluted in 2400 cubic meters of air, giving a concentration of .007ppm.

    That "deadly threat" you'd normally whisk your child away from is 87,000 times safer (at least in terms of formaldehyde) than the baby shampoos described as having "tiny" or "low" levels of formaldehyde. Of course smoke has other chemicals as well, but their "threat concentrations" according to the EPA are usually significantly less than formaldehyde.

    Meanwhile the FDA now wants to vastly stretch its workload to include regulating tobacco. There's clearly a problem here. Either the threat of wisps of airborne smoke have been greatly exaggerated, or the 87,000 times more deadly baby shampoos should have wiped out virtually every child in America. In either case, adding tobacco regulation to the FDA's workload seems like rather a bad idea.


    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"


  • Posted By: Don56 @ 06/30/2009 2:50:58 PM

    Can you name the philosopher who said we have a Will to Power? We want to control everything.

    Argue and present your evidence. but don't use force

    Unless I can use force on you too.I can think of many laws for middle class folks and all would promote better health.

    You using a energy? Let me shut it off after you use too much. Got a SUV? Bad person

    You eating and feeding your children junk food? Let me ban it.

    You drinking? Ok you can buy one drink a week.

    Old saying "it all depends on whose ox is being gored".

    I doubt you all would be so happy about having your lives regulated and I bet I could find much that needs regulation.
    Or

    we can abandon the will to power and argue, present our information and let people live their lives.

    What a concept.

    But that would mean you couldn't control others.

    Oh but then again I couldn't control you.

    Secondhand smoke a health concern for children? Maybe, but Junk food is clearly one and smokers and non smokers buy it for their kids.

    So I am game if you want to regulate others let me look at you and regulate your life. Deal or no deal?

    • Posted By: greymatter @ 06/30/2009 3:08:56 PM

      with freedom comes responsibility. if you are living in housing provided for and paid for the earnings of someone else's efforts who pays for that freedom? you are in effect controlling me by using my income to pay for your housing, but then want the freedom to do as you wish and control me and my contribution. where then is my freedom?

      • Posted By: Don56 @ 06/30/2009 3:30:57 PM

        If you use public highways you use my money for your needs. If you go to college and it receives public money you use my money for your education. We are all on the dole, and the poor get the smallest amount of the money doled out.
        FYI If you argued about junk food ... so what .. my point tis let me look at your life I bet it needs some regulation.
        So Deal or no deal? All I have heard so far is rationalization as to why we should regulate other peoples lives. How about it can I look at your life and regulate it? I bet I can find things you need to change that put people at risk.
        You eating health food? I hope so cause all those pesticides can't be good for you or your kids.

        • Posted By: LuckyViolinist @ 06/30/2009 3:43:01 PM

          Deal. My life is regulated already in many ways, most often wtih good reason.

          • Posted By: Don56 @ 06/30/2009 9:27:06 PM

            Ok shooting in the dark here. Do you use micro biotic soap? If yes then stop you may be putting a child at risk for asthma. Do you drive a car? Well buy an electric one as you put the planet at risk. Do you feed people non organic food. You know the risks. Stop putting your guests at risk. Do you eat meat? Hormones are bad for you stop right now. Do you buy at Walmart? Stop you are exploiting third world workers and putting Americans out of jobs. I guess they wind up in public housing. Do you use air conditioning? If you are healthy then stop, it is a waste of energy again contributing to global warming. Do you buy green energy? Drink only fair trade coffee? I hope you never eat a candy bar. bad bad bad and I believe it should be banned. I could go on and on here. So since I agree to no smoking in public housing you agree to all the above and if non apply another list can be forthcoming. You said deal so we have a deal. I agree to a smoking ban and you agree to the partial list from above. I will be happy to give you a more complete list.

            • Posted By: LuckyViolinist @ 07/01/2009 10:17:02 AM

              • Posted By: LuckyViolinist @ 07/01/2009 10:23:54 AM

                The difference between those things and smoking is a benefit tradeoff. We use soap to protect ourselves and our children from pathogens (E-coli, anyone?) that have effects much worse than those of using the soap in the first place. We drive cars to get to work where hopefully we make the world a better place (depending on your job) and are steadily working on getting rid of gas guzzlers, thankfully. We put pesticides on our food to make it more abundant and affordable (although I wish we wouldn't, with the revival of natural pest control techniques.) No I do not buy at walmart, because they sell mulch made of the clear cut gulf coast cypress forests. The candy bar analogy is still defunct (we've discussed that junk food does not apply.)

                The difference between those things and smoking is that there is no societal benefit to smoking. It is pure selfishness. And more than just self sabotage, when you force others to breathe that stuff too.

                • Posted By: Don56 @ 07/01/2009 11:56:06 AM

                  Ah the agreement was I can tell you what to do and you can tell me. You don't get to make an argument, a rationalization why my regulations are bad in your opinion. The public housing folks won't have that option. The soap causes asthma, Use regular soap it has worked for many years in getting rid of e. coli. Cars cause global warming. Pesticides create cancer. Cost /benefit who cares, it is your health we are talking about. Still the deal was the deal are you going to do it? if not then stop asking for reglations to tell others what to do.
                  A few more for the list. Do you use a cell phone? Microwaves bad for you stop it. And you create noise pollution when you use them in public and force me to listen to you. I hate that. Are you the proper weight for your height? If not you need to lose weight. Also if you need to go anywhere that is less then 3 miles from your house walk or use a bike. both make a healthier you. Everything I have mentioned will make a healthier and a safer world. So live up to the deal you made. Unless of course you want to reconsider and adopt a position which argues for not forcing your will on another. BTW regarding public housing we could ask people to smoke in a room the kids aren't allowed in.
                  Glad to hear you don't shop at Walmart but get to work on the others a deal is a deal.

                  • Posted By: LuckyViolinist @ 07/01/2009 4:27:48 PM

                    Well I've come to the conclusion that you aren't using real reasoning anymore, and are just throwing things out there to be incendiary. Cost/benefit does matter, and the cost/benefit schematic of cigarettes just doesn't justify their continued use.

                    Smoking in a room the kids aren't allowed in will not help the situation. Air will not remain in a single room, and public housing does not have the air filtering ability to remove the carcinogenic particulates from other areas of the home.

                    • Posted By: Don56 @ 07/01/2009 5:33:02 PM

                      I only meant cost/benefit doesn't matter in our agreement. I mean, I can consider it in regulating what you do but you have no say in the matter, as you are supposed to do as you are told. ( That is of course the whole idea in forcing others to do something. what they say does not matter) You said I could regulate what you do so I am and now you are trying to argue smoking. Don't care about smoking as I agree as per our deal you can ban smoking in public housing (remember?...tell others what they can do if I can tell you what to do.. it was our deal). You agreed ( and you had a choice) and since you view some of my demands as incendiary ( I suspect smokers feel the same way) I take it you you don't want to live up to the deal. If you do then do what you agreed too. If not then you prove my point as all my requests to you are based on things we know are good for us.
                      It is a B being told what to do. Argue, educate and persuade but can we stop trying to dictate personal behavior? Stop the will to power, you don't like it and neither do I. But truth be told we all do things that we shouldn't . Things that harm our kids, and harms the planet. I won't tell force you to clean up your act how about you not impose yourself on others?
                      Remember how you felt when being told what you had to do. It is not the way to change people.

                  • Posted By: LuckyViolinist @ 07/01/2009 4:28:29 PM

                    Of course they don't have that option. That's public housing for you.

        • Posted By: greymatter @ 06/30/2009 3:54:59 PM

          i agree with the lucky violinist. the roads ways that we both finance are regulated 9along with my behavior on them) such as in the specifications of construction and speeds at which i am allowed to drive all the the benefit of all who use them. the freedom to use them comes with the responsibility to use them within those parameters. if is were to drive drunk (ignoring the 'rules' or at high speed (adding to others risk on commonly funded property) i would be reigned in to prevent harm to others. that is what is within civil society. when others have to suffer for your freedoms (freedom to drive at whatever speed you want say) then they are not free at all.

          • Posted By: Don56 @ 06/30/2009 9:17:04 PM

            Again you address an analogy not my point. This is amazing. Push any analogy far enough it falls apart. My comment about the highways was simply to show we are all on the dole. I did notice no one address all you college folks on the dole. This ( highway comment) was made in response to a comment that indicated people on the dole aren't responsible. Please try not to make straw arguments and address the issue which in my posts is telling others what to do is easy. Being told what to do well who are you to do that!!!! BTW I don't smoke but I find it disturbing that we attack as a public crusade second hand smoke when less then 20 percent of the population smokes and not all of them have children. There are much bigger concerns out there like childhood obesity, domestic violence against children and a new one. A study recently showed all of you (who have children) who use anti -micro biotic soap increase the rate of asthma in your children, Let's ban the soap.

            • Posted By: greymatter @ 07/01/2009 2:08:07 PM

              no one said tat people on the dole are not responsible.just the opposite. when you accept public assistance, such as using publicly funded roads, you are responsible to use them properly. using public housing also requires some responsibility and i would think a small part of that would be to refrain from a behavior proven to cause harm to others.

              i am in no way beholden to or support government control, but in the case of a government controlled asset, that comes out of all our pockets, the control is already there. food stamps have restrictions on them. BTW: good old hand soap works fine for me (other than an extended trip to India where antibiotic soap was useful and no, i did not get the chance to go to college. i went into the service and then into work in the private labor force.

              • Posted By: Don56 @ 07/01/2009 4:10:00 PM

                Sorry I misunderstood. I think the point is almost all behavior harms others or at least the planet. In your highway examples at least the controls reflected how to drive safely. In the housing example you are trying to control behavior and as we now know cooking oil gives off the same bad stuff as smoke. Do we outlaw cooking oil? I oppose more mandatory controls. Educate and argue. I know people hate smoking but as I pointed out to my "Deal" person there are many things I hate and the world would be better if they did what I say but given the conflicting science not to mention the questionable methodology why not just let the rules stay as they are. Regulate housing as it relates to care, rent and maintenance and use persuasion for the rest.

    • Posted By: LuckyViolinist @ 06/30/2009 2:58:48 PM

      Many people here have brought up the subject of junk food. I believe the differences between regulating/banning cigarettes and junk food that make it an improper analogy are these:

      1. Junk food can be consumed in moderation with no negative health effects. This is not true for cigarettes.

      2. Your child has a choice of whether or not to eat any or all of the cheeseburger you offer. Your child does not have a choice of whether or not to inhale the indoor air you have polluted.

      • Posted By: LuckyViolinist @ 06/30/2009 3:04:41 PM

        In fact, if you insist on continuing to use the junk food analogy for regulation, you must be consistent in its application. Smoking indoors around your children is akin to literally force feeding your children multiple cheeseburgers a day perhaps even despite their protest and it causing damage to their health. And yes, social workers have been assigned in cases where egregious malnutrition is an issue.

  • Posted By: yellowmaxie @ 07/01/2009 12:51:02 AM

    My God, where does it end? Children in public housing face far worse dangers than second-hand smoke, especially since this particular danger is exaggerated anyway. Touting the danger of second-hand smoke personalizes it, getting people who normally might not care to jump on the anti-smoking bandwagon. Don't believe it? Do a little research to see how much proof you can find that second-hand smoke is dangerous. It's always a good idea to look for evidence to support a claim, instead of just blindly accepting it. Sure, we should protect those poor kids from second-hand smoke. Wouldn't want to spend time on the trivial issues they face such as nutrition, health care, drug abuse, crime, incest, or education.

    • Posted By: LuckyViolinist @ 07/01/2009 10:41:57 AM

      http://www.repace.com/SHSFactsheet.pdf

      • Posted By: Don56 @ 07/01/2009 12:09:37 PM

        http://www.newsmax.com/health/secondhand_smoke_harm/2009/04/17/204125.html

        To be consistent you need to ban Cooking oil, wood stoves and other smoke producing combustibles cause they are just as bad as smoking. See link.

        disclaimer I don't know if the study is a good one haven't looked at their methodology.

        • Posted By: LuckyViolinist @ 07/01/2009 4:34:54 PM

          Watch your wording. Nothing in the study says that the smoke from cooking oil is "just as bad" as cigarette smoke, only that it produces comparable physiological response. I haven't seen anything that says cooking oil smoke is carcinogenic, either.

          • Posted By: Don56 @ 07/01/2009 5:08:56 PM

            Point taken comparable is not the same as "as bad as". Of course my Thesaurus lists synonyms for comparable , they are " as good as", analogous,akin, equal, and equivalent. So if cooking oils is " as good as", analogous,akin, equal, and equivalent to smoking... you make the logical inference,

  • Posted By: muffinphobia @ 06/30/2009 1:26:48 PM

    I was in and out of the hospital 4-5 times a year as a child. I suffered from asthma which prevented me from enjoying my childhood. My parents smoked in the house. I moved out and have not been to the hospital once since. I have not suffered from asthma, The ONLY benefit from my parents smoking is that I will never go near a cigarette. Don't try to justify your filthy habit.

    • Posted By: democat @ 06/30/2009 1:34:37 PM

      A) What you say may or may not be true. Can you prove it in a study?

      B) I don't smoke, and never have. I probably should have clarified that right up top, sorry.

      • Posted By: greymatter @ 06/30/2009 1:46:17 PM

        the 'study' is that they are no longer suffering. smoke has been proven to cause cancer among other issues. why sublect anyone to this unwanted intrusion into the lungs. what do the rest of us do....hold our breath?

        • Posted By: democat @ 07/01/2009 10:18:13 AM

          (cont.)

          I know many who read this either won't, or don't want to, believe what I'm saying. You'll say the data supports the EPA findings, because that's what you've always heard. As I said before, perhaps SHS does in fact raise the risks for non-smokers, and I have no proof that it doesn't. But the govt does NOT have proof that it does. That's just what they wanted to tell you all along, and they knew they could pull the wool over your eyes, because most people don't understand statistical analysis in a way that would allow them to look critically at the EPA methodology and the resultant findings.

          Bottom line for me on all this is, I wish no one smoked anywhere. But I think people have the right to choose for themselves, including leaving any particular establishment if they don't like the smoking the owners allow there. But one thing for sure is, the govt shouldn't lie to us, even if it's for our own good in the end. They need to tell us the real truth, and let us decide for ourselves. In this case, if they told us the simple truth, there would be far fewer smoking bans in this country, so they had to lie, thinking the ends will justify the means. That's not how I want America run, and I will do anything in my power to stand up for what is right, wherever and whenever I can, even if I personally have no stake in the issue at hand.

          As my name may imply, I'm not a "hater of government". But even I can see what the EPA did is intellectually dishonest, and congress nearly decapitated the EPA in the hearings. EPA big-shots nearly lost their jobs over the amount of money spent on such flimsy evidence. But in the end, congress allowed the report to stand, because it appeared to be in the best interests of govt to do so. Whether it actually turns out to be, or not, depends on factors yet to be measured, and further depends on your point-of-view. Obviously, some of you want smoking banned no matter what. Not me, because I am an American. What's your excuse?

        • Posted By: democat @ 07/01/2009 10:16:42 AM

          No, first you prove that SHS is harmful. There is no proof, as I've tried to show already. If you think there is definitive proof out there somewhere, first you might ask yourself how that could be scientifically possible, and then you might ask yourself why the EPA could not find it, and could not make a simple, direct declaration that the evidence shows SHS kills. Their summary report says it all: they can't make such a statement, and back it up with any actual facts whatsoever. So they combine as much "supportive" info together from as many sources as they can, ignore the data which does not reach the conclusions they want, and in their wisdom, declare that the issue has been decided.

          All laws across this land banning sources of SHS in public are based on results contained in the EPA report. They are attempting to reduce the incidence rate of first-hand smoking, by "protecting the public". But there is no evidence that they are protecting anyone. Public smoking restrictions are simply a method of reducing smoking in the first place, under the guise of protecting innocent bystanders. They couldn't convince all those smokers to quit for their own good, and those smokers might end up costing the govt through disability and medicare payments (or, they might be dead early, but that part never gets mentioned, does it...?). The govt. wanted desperately to do SOMETHING, and were failing, so looked for and found a way to limit smoking in a manner that the majority of voters would accept, IF THEY REALLY BELIEVE THAT SHS KILLS. All the govt had to do was find the data and produce a report. The first part proved impossible, but that didn't stop them from finishing the analysis. Voila, they wrote the report and the govt. had it's "proof". Now the bans would have a "scientific basis" that the non-smoking public could get behind. (to be cont.)

  • Posted By: The Die Hard @ 06/30/2009 4:56:39 PM

    The girl had cystic fibrosis. She was going to die anyway.

    It is not possible to prevent addictive behavior by outlawing it. Prohibition, remember? Cocaine, y'know?

    A logical alternative would be to offer SMOKE FREE public housing. But you'd have as much success at banning smoking, which is a LEGAL drug, as they have from banning crack, which so far, the record is pretty much zero.

    The only way to reduce smoking is to educate the next generation. "It doesn't make you look cool, it makes you look like an idiot. It isn't a high, it's poisoning your brain so you feel and act like an idiot. It doesn't make you an adult, it makes you a slave to a chemical." You have to stop them BEFORE they get started.

    Like sex education. Get it through to them before the advertisers do. Of COURSE it's advertisers behind the rightwingnut crap about "You can't teach them that, it will give them IDEAS!" Hello, they already have the "ideas." What they DON'T have is the facts.

    "Reefer Madness" never discouraged one single kid from trying marijuana.

    If the concern is second-hand smoke on children, then issue free paper masks.

    But this Winickoff , Chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium, is running his little rant on the same page that advertises diet pills, and "alternative medicine" books, and "everybody loves Michael Jackson" columns, so aside from the fact that he knows nothing about addiction, nothing about the people who live in subsidized housing, and nothing about history, he's also a hypocrite, and probably one of those former smokers who is now all holier-than-thou about quitting.

    You may as well try to ban people in public housing from having sex.

    You can't go at a problem from the top. You have to start from the bottom. The kids, the role models, the advertisements. I'd love to outlaw smoking entirely. I'd also love to outlaw stupidity.

    Now let's talk reality, Mr. Winickoff. We have children starving, children homeless, children being beaten to death, children on drugs, children being raped, children dying of preventable diseases from lack of cheap vaccinations, and you're trying to get your name in the paper over second-hand smoke? What's your next publicity-grabbing crusade, children drowning in hot tubs?

    Hey, here's one for you: childhood obesity! Mommys feeding their kids fastfood every day!

    Choose a different poster child. Maybe one of the thousands with cancer. But go back and tell the AAPTC that you're whoring for, which looks like eight people in an old government office, that if they want to apply for another government grant to write unattributed papers about second-hand and third-hand smoke in public housing projects, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN WEBSITE, YOU ARE ALL JUST BIGOTS WHO WANT POOR PEOPLE TOSSED OUT ON THE STREET, then go measure the particulate count from the power plant, and quit voting for "drill here, drill now"

  • Posted By: MSKITKAT @ 06/30/2009 3:18:55 PM

    oh sure, ban cigarette smoking in public housing..what will they do about the crack smoking, meth smoking, heroin smoking and last but not least ..the over breeding. IDIOTS

    • Posted By: LuckyViolinist @ 06/30/2009 3:28:02 PM

      You're right that there should be family planning programs, if there are not already.

  • Posted By: Pudbert @ 06/30/2009 12:15:48 PM

    When will our HYPOCRITICAL government stop sucking the taxes off of this killing product??

    • Posted By: PMShelton @ 06/30/2009 2:28:47 PM

      Here! Here! If folks don't like banning smoking in their own homes, I'm really going to unpopular when I tell them this. Smoking itself should be banned!

      • Posted By: MSKITKAT @ 06/30/2009 3:21:28 PM

        ok, as long as they ban alcohol!

  • Posted By: MSKITKAT @ 06/30/2009 3:16:54 PM

    Oh sure, ban cigarette smoking....but lets not do anything about the crack smoking, meth smoking an over breeding. IDIOTS!

  • Posted By: conradshull @ 06/30/2009 1:39:18 PM

    Tack this onto the bill: ban golf carts at pubic golf courses.

    • Posted By: greymatter @ 06/30/2009 3:11:25 PM

      or the requirement to get one. let us walk and be healthy!

  • Posted By: akita96th @ 06/30/2009 2:24:05 PM

    Well it wont be long before the democrats will having everyone wearing a blue suit on tuesdays because it will be considered good for ya...So much for land of the free...now we are in the age of democrat majority who feel they know exactly what is good for us and we better tow the line or else..so now it comes to invasion of our home space and of course they are picking on the poorest in society who have no recourse but do as they are told (democrats are becoming nazis) god help us all..

    • Posted By: LuckyViolinist @ 06/30/2009 2:27:45 PM

      Making broad generalizations without careful reasoning results in nothing but "preaching to the choir" and looking silly to everyone else who can see through the parade of hyperbole.

  • Posted By: Brickhammer @ 06/30/2009 11:51:54 AM

    Just another case of somebody telling everyone else whats best and how they should live. Where does it stop? I think it's a great idea not to smoke. It's a good thing to wear seat belts. I certainly don't recommend drinking and driving. Unfortuantely all these great laws are just the rolling back of our freedoms. Soon there will be laws to govern every aspect of your daily life. Your entire long healty life will be all planned out. I prefer a short free life that a long life bound by the chains of big brother knows best.

    • Posted By: greymatter @ 06/30/2009 2:15:59 PM

      with freedom comes responsibility. laws such as motorcycle helmet laws or seat belt laws are restrictive, but when you crash and require advanced medical help or long term care, who pays for that freedom?

  • Posted By: tired and old @ 06/30/2009 11:51:05 AM

    IT SEEMS THAT A PERSON IN THEIR HOME SHOULD DO WHAT THEY WANT AS FAR AS SMOKING GOES.

    IF THE FED, STATE,LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TRIED TO PROHIBIT SMOKING IN PRIVATE RESIDENCE IT WOULD PROBABLY FAIL.

    I QUIT SMOKING ! I DETEST IT NOW ; BUT, I SYMPATHIZE WITH THOSE STILL ADDICTED TO THIS POISON.

    CF PATIENTS HAVE LUNG PROBLEMS AND DON'T NEED EXPOSURE TO SMOKE.

    SOME CF PATIENTS SMOKE.

    I WOULD NOT WANT TO HURT ANY NON SMOKER PERIOD; CF PATIENTS MORE SO.

    SMOKERS LIVING WITH NON SMOKERS SHOULD CARE.

    THE PROBLEM IS I DON'T WANT GOVERNMENT AGENTS VIOLATING HOME PRIVACY EITHER.

    • Posted By: greymatter @ 06/30/2009 2:04:35 PM

      it is not 'their home! it is the 'publics' home. if they want to smoke within their abode, get busy, get up and move out.

  • Posted By: litesphere @ 06/30/2009 12:19:50 PM

    Many of these media outlets whine about how the country is turning Socialist when it comes to businesses, but they have no problem with instituting outright Communistic ideas when it comes to personal freedoms. After they win with smoking then they'll probably try to ban alcohol once again. Perhaps bans on fast food, soda, automobiles (fossil fuels while we're at it), barbeque grills, and airplanes should also be considered? That won't happen though as the majority "needs" those...it's much easier targeting the minority smokers even though a considerate smoker just kills themselves faster and not the entire Earth like the majority does (although you ever wonder what's going on in your own lungs/cardio system when you sit in smog filled rush hour traffic 3 or 4 hours a day? Ban commuting!). In the future the government will lock us up at birth in an environmentally controlled, sterile bubble room so that we can live a hundred years there, and then brag about how long modern society's lifespan is. I hear they're also working feverishly to ban the sun. Whatever happend to the American spirit...Give me freedom or give me death?

    • Posted By: greymatter @ 06/30/2009 2:01:49 PM

      the 'freedom' you speak of... does that continue as you become depended on me for your subsitance? as you are dipping into my pockets to provide housing, why should i not have a say in what is done within that housing? if i loan you my car, can i not ask you not to smole in it or am i curtailing your freedom. we are not talking private homes here.

  • Posted By: Quirk22 @ 06/30/2009 12:23:31 PM

    Let's add to the indignity of being forced into public housing by controlling what they can and can't do too. Why stop at smoking? Why not decide what their children can and cannot eat, how much TV they can watch and when the children should go to bed? If you can justify tobacco use you can justify anything else, and why not? If they could take care of themselves why are they in public housing? Apparently they don't deserve to live their own lives as they see fit because they might make choices that some don't approve of.

    • Posted By: greymatter @ 06/30/2009 1:58:01 PM

      maybe we should just provide the cigarettes to lessen the indignity? kind of like the drugs flotillas in Amsterdam...

  • Posted By: dwimmer38 @ 06/30/2009 1:48:26 PM

    Second hand smoke is a bunch of horse cr*p. Riddle me this stupid lib. If someone can smoke 'first hand" for 40-50 years without any problems, how exactly is someone going to be harmed by second hand? They should make you take an intelligence test before these types of articles are published and/or pass some sort of propaganda filter.

    • Posted By: LuckyViolinist @ 06/30/2009 1:56:24 PM

      Ah, the answer to your riddle lies in the word "Someone". Sure, "someone" can sometimes perform this rare feat of health, but the vast majority of smokers do face the serious health consequences of their habit. Just because "someone" happens to be less suceptible to the effects does not give him any right to expose those more vulnerable (namely children) to smoke.

  • Posted By: conradshull @ 06/30/2009 1:52:22 PM

    Congress and the administration implementing this ban would be ONE way of getting democrats voted out of office in a hurry
    ;-)

  • Posted By: News and Notes @ 06/30/2009 1:02:20 PM

    If the government is subsidizing a large part of your rent, they have more authority over what you can and can't do. i.e.- pet policies, smoking, etc.

    • Posted By: exceltoexcel @ 06/30/2009 1:06:02 PM

      • Posted By: greymatter @ 06/30/2009 1:48:06 PM

        exactly. if you want to smole in the privacy of 'your' own home, then get up and out of 'public' housing and into your 'own' home.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse