I love my father dearly, but he's been a smoker for 60+ years and just can't seem to quit, and he's tried numerous times. My poor mom, their house smells like a tobacco company! And daughter #1 has taken to leaving her jacket outside on their porch we she's there, because she can't stand the smell, and both she & #2 come home with the smell of it in their hair and on their clothes. BF hates to go over there for dinner, because he once was a smoker, and quit, and the smell bothers him so much anymore that it makes him nauseous. It's unhealthy for everyone, but the fact remains that this country was pretty much built on the back of the tobacco industry. Seems a shame.

Why is cigarette smoke different?

It's not and I can't believe there's even any controversy about this. I smoke(I know I should quit), but I never smoke indoors. Not in any public buildings that allow smoking, not in my own home, not even in my own car if there are any passengers along. Even ignoring the health issues, not forcing unpleasant odors on other people is just basic consideration. What the heck is wrong with people that stepping outside for a few minutes is some kind of intolerable burden?

Sean, while I applaud your efforts, I am actually impacted more by the folks downstairs when they smoke on their balcony. When they smoke, I have to close all of my windows.

Hot air rises, who knew?

Tennessee recently passed the law that all restaurants must be non-smoking unless their clientele is 21 or older. A lot of the restaurants that went non-smoking are complaining that they are losing revenue and blaming it on the new law. Here is the article about it.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2007/dec/06/cigarette-ban-stifling-to-some/
As someone pointed out in the comments section, the food at dish (the restaurant mentioned in the beginning) is not as good as it used to be. They recently switched chefs, which usually causes the biggest impact to the bottom line, especially when they make bad food. The smoking ban may have had some impact, but surely not $10K worth. Huey's is also more of a bar, so I'm not sure why they didn't just become 21 and older.

Personally, I am very happy with the new law. It's nice to be able to eat without cigarette smoke creeping into everything, your hair, clothes, and food.

It seems to me that if smoke is coming through your wall you have bigger problems than a smoking neighbor, like a crappy condo.

I have a friend who is being sued because a fire started in a building he lived in and he was a smoker. They aren't even sure that a cigarette started the fire, and there is no way to prove that that cigarette came from him, but they are suing him anyway. Talk about persecution.

Personally I think the anti smoking hysteria is just a littie ridiculous. If I don't want to go to a resturant where people smoke then I will chose a non smoking resturant, I don't want the government to make that choice for me.

It seems to me that if smoke is coming through your wall you have bigger problems than a smoking neighbor, like a crappy condo.

It isn't necessarily the case. Buildings have vents and smoke travels through the vents. Or goes up the balcony into the open windows of the apartment above. It's disgusting. And if you see old people on oxygen tanks, chances are they either smoked or were married to a smoker. Ask around next time you're at an old folks home.

As of January 2007, all restaurants and bars went smoke free here. A couple that qualifed as "gaming" establishments have until this coming January. Business slowed down for a couple months, but it wasn't long before it picked up again and is now the same or better than before. It makes economic sense in addition to being a healthier choice. The majority in our population are non-smokers and more likely to patronize a non-smoking establishment. It appears much more so than smokers not patronizing them.

Sean, while I applaud your efforts, I am actually impacted more by the folks downstairs when they smoke on their balcony.

Ack. That bites, Jerry. I have a house so I'm pretty sure I don't cause anyone but myself any problems. For what it's worth, if I lived beneath you and you let me know about the problem I'd be gald to take my smoking to thhe parking lot, but not many people seem that concerned about neighborliness anymore.

"....not many people seem that concerned about neighborliness anymore."

You're so right, Sean. Many smokers are very polite, of course, but many others aren't, or simply don't think their actions through.

When I was pregnant last time, I was amazed at how many people would light up in front of me without a thought, and apparently not care if I had to breathe their smoke (in a car, for example). I'm sensitive to cigarette smoke at the best of times, but hyper-sensitive when pregnant.

It's great when people go outside to smoke, but some don't seem to realize that going one foot out the door, and leaving it open to stay in on the conversation, occasionally leaning in to contribute, doesn't stop the smoke exposure.

I don't know what the long-term solution is, as I do believe people have the right to destroy their lungs if they want to. I don't, however, think they have the right to expose the unwilling to their waste. And I really don't want to pay for their smoke-related illnesses as they age.

This isn't the government regulating dip, an equally disgusting habit. You can kill yourself with tobacco all you want. The concept here is that you *can't* kill your neighbors, coworkers or servers. Maybe you don't mind avoiding a particular restaurant, but the woman who works there and actually needs that job badly doesn't have quite so much freedom of choice. Sure, she can quit and find another job. But should she have to? A noxious, poisonous gas should not be permitted indoors or around others. Just like you can't set up a polluting manufacturing plant just anywhere, you should.not be able to be a little personal polluter wherever you want.

Because I am ruthless and cold, I am supremely indifferent to whether full-fledged adults choose to smoke, drink to excess, shoot up, what have you (with the possible exception of pregnant full-fledged adults). That having been said, once any behavior by someone else - be it driving drunk, knocking people over as they stagger around in a crack-induced haze, or smoking - affects me and my loved ones, THEN I care. Especially if such behavior is affecting the value of one of my major assets. I agree that it sounds as though those condos aren't constructed all that well, and I bet there's money to be had - eventually - in building multi-unit buildings with sophisticated ventilation systems that ensure that any type of smoke in one unit doesn't affect another. That having been said, if your smoke is affecting someone else when that someone else is in their own home, then it is most definitely your problem.

I have run into health fascists who have tempted me to start smoking - and I've never even had, or wanted, a cigarette. I understand how dealing with people who feel their need to assert their superiority over smokers does not exactly encourage smokers to quit. But when your smoke is directly affecting another people, that's another matter. No, I don't know if secondhand smoke directly leads to lung cancer or what have you...but, as Amy said, if there were any other type of noxious fumes going from one place to another, you'd be told to knock it off. I feel the debate about cancer/no cancer obscures the real issue that nonsmokers shouldn't have to put up with secondhand smoke in enclosed spaces if they are outside of designated smoking areas and smokers' homes, period.

It makes economic sense in addition to being a healthier choice.

Oh, really? Then why didn't you just let the individual bar/restaurant owner make that choice for himself then?

I am amazed at how many people here are A) buying into the junk science that is "secondhand smoke is SO deadly" and B) are willing to embrace nanny-state fascism when it suits their fancy.

Incredible.

Let's say it isn't deadly. Why do you get to pour foul-smelling smoke into my apartment?

So, Ms. Alkon, for the sake of the argument, let's say that cigarette smoke is an annoyance, not some grave public health threat.

Where would you draw the line? I used to have Pakistani neighbors and their place (and mine above it) literally reeked of curry...all...the...time. It was very unpleasant. Given that their both annoyances, why would want to do something about one but not the other? Or would you want to legislate both?

Also, I want to mention that the fact that your apartment gets cigarette smoke in it is either A) your fault, for living in a smoker-friendly building and then complaining about the fact that there's smoke or B) your apartment complex's fault for not clearly delineating the rules.

But, I know, it's much easier to blame some nasty, smelly smoker than the person really at fault: you. Complaining about smoke in a place where smoking is allowed is like complaining about noisy kids at the Chuck-e-Cheese: perhaps you shouldn't have gone in there in the first place.

YOU chose to live there, and continue to do so. You can either encourage your apartment complex to go smoke-free, move to a smoke-free complex, or come to some agreement with your neighbor. Not every annoyance requires massive legal involvement, which comes at a serious detriment to the liberty of all.

I wanted to add a few more points:

I get apartments, but condos? People own those...those are private property. If your neighbor is doing something that annoys you, your first instinct should not be to call the cops or the ambulance-chasers; stop tattling on each other to Mommy State and work it out like adults. And if you don't like smoking in bars and restaurants, then don't go to smoker-friendly bars and restaurants.

Remember when the nanny-state said they just wanted to ban smoking in public/government buildings?

We all said "OK...that sounds reasonable."

And then they came for the bars.
And the restaurants.
And ALL workplaces (see: Ohio, California, et al)
Then the apartments.
Then the condos.
The nursing homes...need I go on?

The public and the government has had the wool pulled over its eyes by neo-puritans and fascists. Under the banner of "Clean Air" and "Public Health", armed with serious scientific distortions about environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), they're slowly marginalizing an activity that 20% of Americans still enjoy.

A noxious, poisonous gas should not be permitted indoors or around others. Just like you can't set up a polluting manufacturing plant just anywhere, you should.not be able to be a little personal polluter wherever you want.

I hope that none of you are so hypocritical as to drive a car. If you drive a car, then shut up about noxious, poisonous fumes: what the fuck do you think carbon monoxide is?

Jerry -

Try mine on for size. I'm a smoker, so the downstairs neighbor's tobacco doesn't bother me at all (though when they had too many folks over, that was a problem too). Nor strictly speaking, would the weed really bother me, if that was all it was. All that really does is give me a bit of a craving myself. But they insist on rolling it in these absolutely nauseating grape blunt rolls. And they were incessant about it all damn summer. One would think they would be considerate, considering our landlord's pretty strict about drugs. But they didn't give a damn, so we kept the windows shut for much of the summer.

Sean -

I haven't smoked in an enclosed space in years. I have actually gotten to the point that I can't stand to be in an enclosed space where people are smoking.

Amy -

Oh yeah, and put away a little money for your emphysema and possible lung cancer -- and the same goes for people who eat themselves into obesity and diabetes.

I am all for high taxes on tobacco, alcohol and (though really a tough one to define) junkfood, to help offset the increase cost of healthcare.

Ayn -

Damn. I'm with you on the anti-smoking laws, not so much on the "junk science." While there are certainly claims that are extreme and ridiculous, there is entirely valid science to support the notion that SHS is indeed, very unhealthy, deadly even (though only with regular exposure).

The phrase "junk science" is also rather a misnomer and oft used by denialists, to denote science that they do not like. There are notions that are supported by evidence gathered, using the scientific method, and there are notions that are not. The fact that someone makes something sound "sciency," does not make it science, junk or otherwise.

I should also note that I do not object to

While there are certainly claims that are extreme and ridiculous, there is entirely valid science to support the notion that SHS is indeed, very unhealthy, deadly even (though only with regular exposure).

Like when some smoke-like-a-chimney asshole moves in next door to your NYC apartment.

Like when some smoke-like-a-chimney asshole moves in next door to your NYC apartment.

Damn, are you chained to your apartment walls?Move if you don't like the apartment complex's policies.

And why is he automatically an asshole because he smokes anyway? Judgemental much?

I get apartments, but condos? People own those...those are private property.

Yes! Yes they are. And one has the right to be free from smoke or other noxious fumes in one's private property as well. And if you are living in a condo/apartment building, there are certain things you can't do - have your polka-dancing team over at three in the morning if it's going to keep up your neighbors, for example. I fail to see why cigarette smoke is so different and special.

Move if you don't like the apartment complex's policies.

So let's see: My neighbor is making it impossible to live in the apartment I am renting because I'm coughing all of the time, and *I'm* the one who should incur the moving expenses? Not to mention the lease-breaking expenses if I can't last it out a year?

And why is he automatically an asshole because he smokes anyway?

If you are told that the smoking you are doing is seeping in to someone else's apartment/condo and you don't take some steps to ameliorate that, then yes, you're an asshole, just as you would be if you were told that your 3 am polka class is keeping your downstairs neighbors awake and you kept that up. Again, I fail to see why cigarette smoke should be a special class here.

marion - I am not sure if you're deliberately obtuse or if you really have such mental constipation, but I am going to do my best to fix that.

My neighbor is making it impossible to live in the apartment I am renting because I'm coughing all of the time, and *I'm* the one who should incur the moving expenses?

Maybe, just maybe, you should not have moved into a smoker-friendly complex in the first place. Yes, it's your fault. If the apartment owners allow smoking in their individual rental spaces, then you should have taken that into consideration before you moved there, especially if you're such a delicate flower that you "cough all the time".

If a smoker sits down in a smoking-allowed bar and proceeds to smoke right next to you, you have three options:

1) Ask him to stop
2) Petition the bar to go non-smoking
3) get your ass up and move somewhere else

Apply the above example to your apartment and you'll get the picture.

Yes they are. And one has the right to be free from smoke or other noxious fumes in one's private property as well.

*Laughter*

Yeah, and I have the right not to hear cars on the overpass, the neighbor's lawnmower, his loud-ass kids or dogs, that annoying sun in the mornings where I am trying to sleep in...

But you know what? That's life dude. Man up and quit being such a pussy. Sometimes you have to just deal. Cigarette smoke is annoying, as are a plethora of other unpleasant outside annoyances. But you don't hear anyone moving to ban loud children.

marion - if I agree that polka-dancing should be limited to certain hours, can you agree to allow smoking at certain hours?

I thought not.

By the way, the same should go for curry cookers. It's not fair to have your life spill over into somebody else's apartment. Here's a post from a current New Yorker about your silly suggestion that the person just move:

They were discussing this on The View the other morning. The red head, Joy I think, was saying that her neighbors smoked and her entire apt smelled like smoke. Her clothing, furniture etc. I for one, would HATE that. I don't smoke and I dont want to smell your smoke either. It would be one thing if you could just move to another apt but in NY you literally have to wait for someone to die before you can find space.

It's exactly the same as noise pollution from the 3am polka. Libertarianism isn't "do whatever the fuck you want to people." There's the principle of "Your right to punch somebody in the nose ends where their nose begins." Same with their ears, lungs, and smeller.

marion - if I agree that polka-dancing should be limited to certain hours, can you agree to allow smoking at certain hours

Your life doesn't get to spill over into other people's apartments. If I am home and you're playing polka music loud enough that I can hear it, I can't read, nap, or concentrate on the computer. How fair is that? It's utter piggishness to take over other people's lives with your activities.

"I get apartments, but condos? People own those...those are private property. If your neighbor is doing something that annoys you, your first instinct should not be to call the cops or the ambulance-chasers; stop tattling on each other to Mommy State and work it out like adults. "

That's impossible. Smokers are as a general rule, selfish assholes who refuse to acknowledge that their toxic, noxious fumes cause any illness or even smell bad.

Smokers are as a general rule, selfish assholes who refuse to acknowledge that their toxic, noxious fumes cause any illness or even smell bad.

Umm, actually no. There are a very few of them like that. The rest of us do our best to accommodate others, thank you very much. I have been a smoker for all too long now and have never been one to share my smoke. I also acknowledge that SHS is indeed the cause of health problems, which is why (aside from the fact that it stinks) I try to avoid sharing the fumes.

That said, I do find this notion of insisting that folks can't smoke in their homes ridiculous. Lets tally it. No smoking in restaurants, no smoking in front of any buildings. No smoking in the workplace, including parking lots. No smoking anywhere on public streets (certain cities in Cali). And now no smoking at home (not that I have in many years).

I am sorry that it is so damn hard to find a place to live in NYC. Sounds like there are far worse problems than the "asshole" next door smoking. That doesn't relieve one of the responsibility of finding a place that will cater to their comfort. I haven't lived in a rental that allows smoking in years, to avoid this very issue. Indeed, in most places, it is becoming harder and harder to find a rental that allows indoor smoking, it is much more expensive to turn over an apartment that has had smoking in and the insurance is much cheaper if you don't allow the smoking. I can't imagine that this is significantly different in NYC.

What I have seen in Portland, for example, is the rise of smoker buildings. For the same apartment in a non-smoking building, rent would be about fifteen percent less, the extra rent pays for the increased cost to the landlord. It also manages to segregate the indoor smokers, away from non-smokers. Hell, a much as I loathe our slumloard, they did do one thing right. The people below and above us, are also outdoor smokers (the pot is a irritation, but what do you do?). That way the smoke rolling off the balcony, is not likely to annoy anyone.

uh, yeah Amy, I hope that you never take any form of transportation that involves combustion. Your carbon monoxide is polluting MY lungs and MY air!

Your life doesn't get to spill over into other people's apartments

No, Amy, libertarianism recognizes the apartment-owner's rights to allow smoking on his property, or polka-dancing, or whatever he wants.

Repeat after me: I DON'T OWN MY APARTMENT; MY LANDLORD DOES.

NOT...YOUR...APARTMENT.

Maybe you need to start over on libertarianism; it's obvious you don't know the first things about freedom.

You should have read the contract you signed. If smoke really bothers you that much, you should not have moved into a place that allows people to smoke.

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend.

That's impossible. Smokers are as a general rule, selfish assholes who refuse to acknowledge that their toxic, noxious fumes cause any illness or even smell bad.

Like I said, I hope you don't drive a car. Carbon monoxide kills in a few hours; tobacco smoke takes decades to kill. But cars are too convenient for you and going after the "mean and nasty smokers" gives you chance to vilify someone with your self-righteous bullshit.

Unfortunately, the way our society is constructed, and due to the lack of innovation in transportation vis a vis the problems evident as early as the 70s with pollution and oil shortages, I must use transportation that involves combustion. But, I make an effort (including a paying a financial premium) to pollute your lungs as little as possible. I drive a SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle), a Honda Insight, that gets around 60mpg if I'm on the freeway without traffic. Less in the city, less if it's stop-and-go traffic.

Your right to pollute my lungs ends where my lungs begins. Whether I rent or own. Also, doing so with impunity is assholish behavior.

All that stuff about your car, that's just great. You still pollute and I breathe it in. You can try to justify it to yourself all you want and do some feel good stuff like drive that fancy car, but you still are a polluter of my lungs.

Your right to pollute my lungs ends where my lungs begins. Whether I rent or own.

So, does that extend to bars too? I mean, that must mean you support would support a federal smoking ban in bars and restaurants; after all, you have some kind of "right" above and beyond that of the property owner of your apartments, so you must have the intrinsic "right" at a bar.

I'll direct you to Instapundit's post on why the mall is not a private but a sort of public venue:

http://instapundit.com/archives2/012621.php

Well, malls are only sort of private property. You can, for example, exclude people from your home because you don't like their race or religion; mall owners can't do that because it's against public policy, and a mall is a place of public accommodation. In addition, business owners generally take on a higher duty of care for customers on their premises, including a duty to protect them from the violent acts of third parties if those acts are reasonably foreseeable. The question is, given the tendency of mass shootings to occur in places where guns are banned, and given that gun bans take away customers' ability to defend themselves -- and other customers -- does this result in liability of shopping malls when such shootings occur? Or, at least, produce a duty to have more armed security than they otherwise would have (the Omaha mall appears to have had very little) in order to make up for the increased insecurity created by the gun ban? The question isn't open and shut, but it seems to me to be ripe for litigation.

What I've done is go to great expense (thousands of dollars) to pollute as little as I have to. I still have to get across town sometimes, and in a town where public transportation is not a very viable alternative for somebody who doesn't have five hours. That said, I rarely drive very far, and spent $237 on gas...last year, for the entire year. I also have used reusable bags at the grocery store for the better part of a decade, and I have had campaigns against unnecessary SUV driving (if you've got to haul lumber to the job site, by all means drive the USS Nimitz. If you're a lady taking a latte from Santa Monica to Hollywood, why pollute my lungs unnecessarily?

Smoking and polka playing are not necessitites. Having a roof over your head is.

Smokers are as a general rule, selfish assholes who refuse to acknowledge that their toxic, noxious fumes cause any illness or even smell bad.

Not in my experience. Most of the smokers I know know that smoking is bad for them, just as I know eating chocolate is bad for me. They also go to some length to avoid subjecting others to smoke when inappropriate - if both of us are in a bar that allows smoking, they'll smoke, but they don't insist on lighting up everywhere. There is a small, noisy contingent of smokers who insist that their right to smoke is sacrosanct, but having a small, noisy contingent isn't peculiar to smokers.

All-smoking buildings sound like a good idea to me. What I'd like, ideally, is ventilation systems that can dilute out smoke so that I really, truly wouldn't care if my next-door neighbors were smoking in an apartment building. Charcoal filters in furnaces are supposed to help cut down on fumes. I'd be willing to pay a small extra fee for this purpose if I lived in a multi-unit business, as this would help me avoid *all* unpleasant smells and types of smoke.

I will say that smokers have a giant advantage when it comes to socialization. "Do you have a light?" is an invaluable ice breaker for either gender, and smoking areas are often the only places at companies where people from all sorts of professional ranks mingle freely. My smoking friends are typically the ones that know everyone at the companies where they work, and at least a couple of my friends are now married to people they asked for a light.

Ayn

I want no part in this argument except to say that you've got to stop using the transportation argument. I'm sure that you don't bike, walk or canoe everywhere that you go. Given that, your argument is irrelevent at best. These are non smokers arguing against having smoke foisted upon them. You are an exhaust emitter (even if it's strictly public transportation) arguing against other exhaust emitters, it doesn't work that way. I'm sure you can come up with a better example.

Thank you, Aardvark.

No, Aardvark, I'm not the one arguing that everywhere I go, my lungs have the right to remain absolutely pristine, and that all property owners, be they landlords or barkeeps, have to bend to my will. That's AMY's megalomania, not mine.

Amy said that "Your right to pollute my lungs ends where my lungs begins. Whether I rent or own."

Are you going to answer my question about banning smoking in bars and restaurants too? Hell, Amy, my right to pollute ends where your lungs begin, so I guess we better outlaw "unnecessary" smoking altogether, in case your precious, sacred lungs take in a wisp of "unnecessary pollution".

But, yeah, that car pollution. Totally necessary...'cause Amy needs it.

Right.

Actually, we all need vehicle pollution, Ayn. That is, unless you built your house with trees that you grew, nails that you made out of iron you mined, and cement you... whatever you do to make cement. The point is that the clothes we wear, the food we eat, and the products we use all came from somewhere else.

Using an argument that you don't actually believe in, as well as one that is insensible, comes off as rather "nyah-nyah, you're not perfect either." It doesn't counter the argument that smoke is unhealthful AND smelly, and that people in their own homes shouldn't have to put up with it. And while there may not be laws about loud children (damn it), there are laws about barking dogs, appropriate hours to mow your lawn, how close you can build freeways and what noise barriers you must erect in residential areas. If cigarette smoke only especially bothered people at certain hours, it could be regulated like noise, but it doesn't. Which you know. Who's being deliberately obtuse now?

So, Christina, do you or do you not support Amy's proposition that "your right to pollute ends where my lungs begin?"

My example of cars was primarily used to demolish that little piece of crazy.

However, you (yes YOU!) sitting in your own home, have to put up with all kinds of pollution, to include carbon monoxide from cars. It's just funny to me that, despite the plethora of smells, fumes, gasses and smokes we have in our air, all people ever whine about is cigarette smoke.

Also, Christina, I agree with you that people should not have to put up with smoke in their own homes. What's bad for Amy is that she doesn't live in her own home; she lives on someone else's property, someone who has allowed smoking in and around their property. Like I said before, if you're such a delicate little flower that you just can't stand smoke, you should have (like DuWayne does) ensured that you rented a non-smoking locale.

You want to know what my real point is? It's to show people who ridiculous they have gotten on this issue. Mr. Zitomer talks about how smoke "billowed" in and the writer of the article called it a "menace" on the level with rats. Amy has bought the junk science hook, line and sinker and says that people are emitting "possibly deadly or health-impairing odors".

Let me ask everyone this: how on earth do you plan on regulating the air?

I think that pollution is already being regulated, and if it is decided that secondhand smoke is a pollution or harmful, it would fall under this portion of law. If it is not, and that is a giant if, I think it would fall under a different realm of legality, the "peaceful enjoyment" section. Maybe it's both? The point is that we do regulate people's actions when they violate the social norm of trying to make shared space (even air) tolerable for everyone. When people start the petition against noisy kids, sign me up. I'm all over that.

Amy's complaint didn't start this whole thread. It was the complaint of someone who DID own their home (right?). So does home ownership make the difference here? Or is that just another point to quibble over?

As far as the other odors/fumes/etc we all put up with: we install detectors in our homes to prevent carbon monoxide from poisoning us. We limit pollutants as far as the law allows. We agitate for harsher laws against pollutants, just as people are against cigarettes. Quite a lot of people, respected scientists included, believe that second-hand smoke is harmful to health.

I haven't done the research; I don't know how strong the evidence is. But I'll play along. I don't believe that taking acid is the "societal danger" that many believe it to be. Let's equate that with smoking for a moment. Both are vices, both, for argument's sake, not harmful to others. However, taking acid doesn't require others around you to also take acid. Smoking does force others to inhale smoke, and all the chemicals that are in that smoke, as well as the unpleasant sensation of breathing smoke instead of air, the smell that sticks to you, and the taste that gets in your mouth. Smoking is a vice. Pleasant for the user, but ultimately unnecessary and unhealthy. I don't believe that there is any other legal vice that just by using, you force others to participate and also use.

And as for how to regulate the air? We already do that, through pollution laws. Is there something I missed behind that question?

And as for how to regulate the air? We already do that, through pollution laws. Is there something I missed behind that question?

Christina, it is much, much easier to identify major sources of pollution (traffic, factories) and cap their output. Enforcing air standards against the 20% of Americans (50-60 million individuals) is impossible without some massive "War on Tobacco", and I can't condone that.

Smoking is a vice. Pleasant for the user, but ultimately unnecessary and unhealthy.

You could substitute driving and say the same thing. Driving is ultimately unnecessary; you don't need it to survive. But it sure adds to your quality of life. Also, there are about a million products that, by way of their manufacturing and transportation processes, contribute to pollution that you don't need either. That wine from Australia? Those grapes from Chile? You don't need them, and you're ultimately NOT paying the cost in pollution that flying those commodities to your local grocer generates.

See, you're being far too subjective, in that you think vice = anything you say it is. If I get in my car and drive for fun that's a vice as well. Do you want to regulate driving to "necessary driving only"? Attempting to parse out what's "necessary" and what's a "vice" is way, way too subjective. Us sitting here arguing this very point uses electricity and contributes to the degradation of our air...and this sort of philosophical debate is definitely a vice, not a necessity.

"It's just funny to me that, despite the plethora of smells, fumes, gasses and smokes we have in our air, all people ever whine about is cigarette smoke.

. . . . Like I said before, if you're such a delicate little flower that you just can't stand smoke, you should have (like DuWayne does) ensured that you rented a non-smoking locale. "

Thank you for proving my point.

Do you say the same thing if your neighbor is working, as Eva Hesse did, with toxic plastic fumes (which almost surely felled her from cancer)? Where do you draw the line? Why do you get to let your life spill over into others' dwellings?

Yes, I can see driving for pleasure as a vice, Ayn. Drinking imported wine and eating imported fruit, sure, not necessary. That's why I limit my driving as much as possible, support local farmers and try to avoid being overly consumptive as much as possible. I drive my car an average of once a week. I pay a premium to live close to school so that I can walk instead of drive. I could save 300 bucks a month living farther, and that may not be a lot to some people, but on a college kid's budget it is. My point is that it's our job to try to lessen our impact on the earth, and also to try and share our space in the most communal based way possible. Unfortunately, people don't self-regulate as they should. So there have to be laws to protect the rest of us, i.e. noise laws. What percent of people do you think make noise? Oh, that's right. All of us. We manage to regulate that just fine.

I agree that driving is a luxury for a lot of people. Its a lot harder to regulate harms where people can't see the immediate impact. Smoking is an easy target, because it's so blatent. But its hardly a witchhunt. People have been fighting pollution for years.

Drinking isn't allowed just anywhere. Sex is limited too.a thousand normal activites are limited so that others may enjoy their lives without dealing with it. Smoking is not somehow special. As it becomes increasingly unpopular, it will be more and more marginalized. So since the smokers are in the minority, and they are the ones causing the smoke, why is it weird if it is they who should have to make the special accommodations, not the other 80 percent of society?

Why do you get to let your life spill over into others' dwellings?

Why do you get to live in a building that does not restrict smoking and assume that your apartment is going to remain clear of the tobacco smoke?

When you choose to live in an apartment, your neighbors lives spill over into yours. That is the way it works in apartments. Right now, we are smelling the bacon cooking in our downstairs neighbors apartment. For me, it just creates a craving for bacon. For my pregnant, vegetarian partner, it is brutally nauseating (pregnancy makes the nose very sensitive).

We also live with the neighbors above having young twins who do an excellent job of mimicking elephants trampling across the floor. Likewise, our son is much like an elephant to our neighbors below. We all try to keep the kids from being too loud but also accept that silence is not going to happen.

Having kids, all of us need to live in a non-smoking space. To make sure that we don't end up getting smoked out, we live in non-smoking rentals. Accepting that apartment living inherently means living with the neighbors and the overlap that comes from their lives into ours. If we were stupid enough to rent in a building that allowed indoor smoking, we would have to accept the consequences when the smoke rolled in.

I find this (and the spanking post) a great example of the fallacy of simplistic dichotomies. I'm fairly liberal, with definite socialist tendencies. You OTH, have some fairly idealistic libertarian notions. Yet on these and a few other topics, we seem to hit the opposing views of our general ideological perspectives.

My point is that it's our job to try to lessen our impact on the earth, and also to try and share our space in the most communal based way possible.

Christina - I am truly sad that you believe we have to reduce our footprint and reduce your personal standard of living for some "higher" responsibility. My only point was to show you the number of things that could be considered "vices". I WANT you to enjoy the wide and wonderful things that globalization has to offer, without all the guilt the lefty-enviros push on you. I wish that you were not so throughly indoctrinated in communalism and some form of higher "responsibility"...it's the left's answer to religion.

As to your other point, about limitations, you're forgetting about property rights. If an apartment owner, or a bar owner, or a home owner, wants to allow smoking in or on his/her property, then that is that individual owner's right to do so. There don't have to be "special accommodations". If you don't want to be around smoking, don't go to smoke-friendly places. Unfortunately, communalists like yourself think that "we're" all in this together, and "we" have to set policy for everybody else.

That's a scary deference to state power.

JoJo - what makes you think I'm a smoker?

Oh, and a special "go fuck yourself" is in order, too.

Why is this limited to smoking?

This is a pet peeve of mine. I'm a nonsmoker much more bothered by perfume than I am secondhand smoke because I am very severely allergic to perfume. It makes me ill, causes me to sneeze nonstop and gives me difficulty breathing. I would much rather see perfume made illegal than cigarette smoke (though cigars and pipes are worse than perfume as far as making me ill).

However, I realize that demanding that perfume be made illegal is an unreasonable demand -- as unreasonable as I have concluded secondhand smoke is. (I too am skeptical of the "science" behind so-called second-hand; there's simply no way to do a test subject of humans isolating them from everything else that could cause cancer including air pollution from vehicles, etc.) How are you going to enforce it? A sniff test? Even I have to use perfume on occassion. (Just try and find shampoo and dish soap without any; fortunatly, deoderant, laundry soap and bar soap is; I have to find what bothers me the least because it's mild and less an ingredient than other products.) Much as I don't like second-hand smoke, I'd rather live above the smoker than the incense burning earth mother. I've had to shut windows against incense more times than I can count. And a smoker may or may not be considerate but ever try and approach an incense burner? They act like you're trying to kill (in my view nonexistent) soul.

Also, why are condos sacred? If you buy a house, unless you're a lucky enough s.o.b. to afford acres and acres of land, guess what, six years down the road, a smoker could move in next door, a few yards across the driveway from you? They might even be so considerate of their housemates that they step into their driveway next to yours and bring the smoke closer to you. Should that homeowner be entitled to call the police every time they light up. Yes, it sucks to have the burden of moving or (more likely) taking steps to protect yourself from the irritating smoke on you but that is life. If I have an allergy attack brought on by perfume, I have to take medicine for it that makes me drowsy and cuts into my quality of life. Why should you be protected from second hand smoke but I have to endure this? I eliminate perfume from my life as much as possible. I will plug my nose if someone gets on the bus drenched in a whole bottle (and I don't much care if they think I'm rude) but I have to deal despite the detriment to my health just as I have to deal with both cigarette smoke and vehicle exhaust despite the detriment to my health.