We should also ban smoking in houses/condos. If you have kids. Hell, let's ban you from smoking (period) if you have kids.

While we're at it, let's ban smoking in condos just for the fucking hell of it. Doesn't even matter if you have kids or not.

This is your life. Now this is how you're going to live it.

Fuck off, Charles. Go beat your kids.

Forgive me! I love you, Charles! (Call me!)

The Reason Hit & Run blog commented on this the other day, on a proposed ban in NYC, and how if you're going to go after smoking like this, there's really no end of the list of things that could be harmful to children and thus squeezed by the state:

Children, of course, do not have the same freedom as adults to choose their homes or their rides. But as I've said before, a somewhat higher risk of lower respiratory infections (one that is seen only in small children, not in the older kids and teenagers covered by Gennaro's bill) is not the sort of hazard that justifies overriding parental autonomy (let alone splitting up families, which is what would happen if smoking at home were recognized as a form of child abuse, as some activists urge). To be consistent, other parental decisions that can affect children's health, including those regarding bedtimes, TV watching, diet, exercise, and dental hygiene, also would be subject to micromanagement by the state. As Audrey Silk, founder of Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, tells The New York Sun, "If they can come into our car, then they can come into our home. And everybody should be afraid of this, not just because of smoking."

Ultimately, I think, people go after smoking because they personally don't like it, and use kids as a proxy to attack anyone doing it.

@3

100%. Most of the extreme attackers used to be smokers, which is actually part of the problem. It's no different then living a life of sin and all-of-the-sudden finding Jesus. Now that you've found Jesus, you must show Jesus to everyone, because what's good for you is a must for all. Now that you've quit smoking, you must tell everyone to quit smoking, because what's good for you is a must for all.

@4
100%. Most of the extreme attackers used to be smokers, which is actually part of the problem.

Yeah... a good example of this is Mayor Mike in NYC... he's an "ex" and he's about as vicious on this issue as anyone you'll find.

F1.9.

There's a reason why Canadians live more than 8 years longer than Americans, and it's not just their national health care system ...

As much as I have been a fascist non-smoker since a very young age (except for a month when I actually did smoke), these rules are nuts. While smoking should certainly be limited in public, the legal activities adults do in their own homes are their own business.

I suspect that national health care system has a lot to do with why Canada has more and more "nanny state" laws like this. Just like insurance companies, they have actuarial tables calculating risks of various behaviors and correlating those to what it will cost to address the resultant health problems down the line. So every move to restrict some form of risky behavior comes attached to a dollar figure showing the savings in health benefit payouts when spread over the whole population.

I still think a single-payer system is better than what we've got, but it is not without a downside. It does make the state a more direct participant in the individual's health choices than it would be otherwise. And if you had to pay higher taxes in order to finance the treatment for lung cancer your neighbor is going to need you might take a more active interest in regulating that behavior as well.

In Manitoba you can't smoke in any public places, nor within so many feet of a public place. Nor can any business display cigarettes, even to sell them. They can still SELL them but they're hidden behind curtains in most places or in cabinets without glass doors.

I say they can do whatever the fuck they want as long as I don't have to pay for health-care, and I am a smoker (and an American citizen.) I've experienced both forms of health care and let me tell you, Canada's is way better.

The car thing is a bit much, though. And they should DEFINITELY stay the fuck out of my home.

Ever been to Japan? Those crazy fucks smoke everywhere (except WALKING on the sidewalk, its banned) and I saw hundreds of young parents chainsmoking with toddlers whilst eating raw fish, deep fried shit and yummy other stuff....Those kids are fucked, it was SO offensive to see....people are fucking retarded...

Don;t be stupid. I've seen topless 8 yearolds smoking in japan on monkey chains.

Shit, I wouldn't even know how to smother a dolphin if not for that 4 year old who showed me how to stuff marbles in their blowholes.

Japan has it covered you freedom hater.

9: "I suspect that national health care system has a lot to do with why Canada has more and more "nanny state" laws like this."

Like what?

Fact: Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the nation.

Fact: Young children are particularly harmed by the effects of secondhand smoke.

Fact: Chronic exposure to secondhand smoke in childhood can CAUSE asthma in otherwise healthy children for the rest of their lives.

Smoking in car with kids = child abuse.

It is that simple. We don't need a law for this, just prosecute it as you would any other case of child abuse.

This goes for home/car/wherever.

Toby: Like the stricter controls (and very high taxes) on smoking that Jess8 mentions. Like greater restrictions on teen drivers. Etc.

Think if you combined our own country's propensity for seatbelt and helmet laws and the like with an actual concrete financial incentive.

In that case, Johnny, living in a city with children must be construed as child abuse (Fact: significantly higher rates of asthma occur among children who live in urban areas than those in rural or suburban areas). Living in a city = child abuse.

Anyone who eats too much and exercises too little must be considered a danger to themself and committed involuntarily (Fact: obesity is now the second highest underlying contributor to preventible death in the US, behind demon tobacco. If it continues to grow at the present rate, it will not be long before it's the top cause). Being obese = self-abuse (ha!).

Hell, while we're at it, let's call obese parents a danger to their children (Fact: children learn all those bad health habits at home, above anywhere else). Being an obese parent = being a danger to your child.

You may support the mindless, dangerous imposition of government control on private lives, but sensible people do not. Sensible people know when enough is enough, even when the outcome--fewer children with asthma--is laudable. Sensible people also realize that the outcome-based approach is not perfect and that our desire to get good outcomes must not override more fundamental considerations. And I'm a non-smoking Democrat, for the record.

Not smoking around your own, or anyone else's children is simply the right thing to do. Asthma is a huge problem with kids these days and particulate matter, ie: smoke is the #1 factor. Cars are much more enclosed than even a small living room, therefore more concentrated smoke. We all know that; ever smell a smoker fresh from the car? If it takes a law so be it. BTW, I smoked for 25 years and still don't care if other grownups do it.

#16,

Actually, if cigarettes were a new product trying to get approval today, sensible people would not allow it on the market. The same sensible people who banned ephedra, deet, and many other hazardous substances would never let tobacco on the market- period.

Sensible people damn sure are not claiming they have some "right" to poison their children. The overwhelming majority of parents (both smoking and non) DO NOT smoke in their homes or cars when children are present.

A tobacco industry exec put it best, "We don't smoke that shit, we just sell it. We reserve the right to smoke for the young, the poor, the black and stupid"

And as you would have it, their children.

I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone, but here are a list of characteristics that the tobacco industry identified in people that are most likely to become smokers:

Problems with self esteem
Has menial boring job
Emotionally insecure
Passive-aggressive
Probably leads fairly dull existence
Grooming not a strong priority
Lacks inner resources
Group conformist
Non-thinking
Not into ideas
Insecure followers

So, basically they find these less than stellar people and convince them that enhaling a deadly product will make them everything they aren't. No wonder it is so hard to give up "being a smoker", given that one must give up being the "person" that billions of dollars in advertising created and return to the list above.

Johnny: Wow, the tobacco industry came up with that list? They sound pretty smart. Maybe I should try some of their products.