Second Hand Smoke Scam

Fox News ^ | October 17, 2003 | Steven Milloy

[CSM]

I could only laugh last April when I first heard about a study claiming that a smoking ban in Helena, Mont., cut the city

[metesky]

IIRC, some Colonies banned smoking in the public commons, but none banned it in taverns and hostelries, except maybe during the thankfully brief reign of the anti-tobacco zealot James I.

[r9etb]

Parents who didn't restrain from smoking where the health of their children was proven to be in jeopardy would be irresponsible

And so..... then what?

[r9etb]

Nope.I still don't want the government involved. The churches and non government non-profits should monitor and help these children,not the government.

OK, so these chuches and non-profits could monitor me starving and torturing my kids. And then what?

[Madame Dufarge]

And, happily for the rest of us, odds are you'll die sooner than if you didn't smoke.

And to you and the "rest of us," it's a small price to pay to be rid of you.

Thank God you pestiforous yellow-bellies came along at the ass-end of my life (how fitting) rather than the front end.

Though you've proven yourself tone deaf to life, your period of ascendany will be short lived.

Human nature inevitably overtakes you.

[metesky]

And so..... then what?

We'd call you to make everything perfect.

[Mears]

The highlighted word in Madame's post was "proven",you seem to have missed that.

[r9etb]

Thank God you pestiforous yellow-bellies came along at the ass-end of my life (how fitting) rather than the front end.

How very pleasant. And you wonder why, with your pleasant, cheery demeanor, non-smokers tend not to be terribly concerned that friendly folks like you retain the right to smoke.

[r9etb]

The highlighted word was used to lead in to the fact that she calls the parents "irresponsible." She doesn't bother to take it beyond that -- what should one do about parents who knowingly harm their children?

Not an easy question, necessarily, but that's not a good reason to duck it.

[Mears]

And then what? Nothing---as I said before some kids will fall through the cracks.

This country did just fine raising kids without the government interfering for about 200 years.

No system will ever protect all children,unfortunately,human nature being what it is,but my fear of government interference is visceral.

[Madame Dufarge]

That's wonderful! Let me know when we reach the "offensive" threshhold for the disgustingly obese, the ugly, the cellulite farms, the huge noses...

Maybe there is a silver lining to all this.

I humbly bow to that catch.

[VRWC_minion]

Could you imagine the cry of the smokers when we banned out door smoking ?

[Madame Dufarge]

And so..... then what?

It would be a matter for the parents' conscience.

[metesky]

As an off topic aside, I've been reading Paul Johnson's Modern Times which goes into the methodology of Stalin pretty deeply.

One of his favorite scams was getting one group to point the finger at another and denounce them as "impure" communists. He would then use these denouncements to round up the impure and either kill them outright or disappear them into the gulag.

After a relatively short time he would round up the finger pointers and they too would disappear.

I'm not saying our compatriots here, the finger pointers, dissemblers, signifiers and outright liars are trying to get us "gulaged", but I think they are smug and totally unaware of the fact that they're being used against their fellow citizens and they're next.

[r9etb]

And then what? Nothing---as I said before some kids will fall through the cracks.

Well, I guess this certifies you as a crackpot.

In the scenario at hand, we have a church or non-profit watching as I starve and torture my children, and now you're saying, "let it happen, some kids just slip through the cracks."

No system will ever protect all children,unfortunately,human nature being what it is,but my fear of government interference is visceral.

Apparently to the point of denying that it is a legitimate function of government to prevent parents from starving and torturing their children.

You've got some issues, apparently, that lead you to your preposterous position on child-raising. But even for a guy with issues, this is just plain idiotic.

[r9etb]

It would be a matter for the parents' conscience.

Hmmmmm. How very convenient. Does this extend only to smoking, or can we logicall extend it to Mears' defense of parents' right to starve and torture them?

[Mears]

The only issue I have is government out of control.

I'm not a guy,I'm the mother of 5 middle aged,non-smokers and have 6 grandchildren.

Again,it's the government I'm afraid of,that's it.

[Mears]

The only issue I have is government out of control.

I'm not a guy,I'm the mother of 5 middle aged,non-smokers and have 6 grandchildren.

Again,it's the government I'm afraid of,that's it.

[metesky]

Who's this "we", minnie? Not that it would stop me from behaving in the exact same way that I've been carrying lo, these sixty years.

Vould I haf to carry my papers vith me on the street? If not, they could write as many smoking tickets as they wanted and I would simply lie about my identity, rip the ticket up and relight as soon as the Gestapo left.

I bet you have a plan though, eh minnie?

[Madame Dufarge]

How very pleasant. And you wonder why, with your pleasant, cheery demeanor, non-smokers tend not to be terribly concerned that friendly folks like you retain the right to smoke.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that people like me automatically defer to your type, because of your assumption of the cloak of moral superiority.

High entertainment value, low value in any other venue adults would think worthy of consideration.

[r9etb]

I'm not saying our compatriots here, the finger pointers, dissemblers, signifiers and outright liars are trying to get us "gulaged", but I think they are smug and totally unaware of the fact that they're being used against their fellow citizens and they're next.

LOL!!!! I doubt that. Yes, there are the anti-smoking nazis who go too far, and I'd just as soon they went away. But this is not the "nose under the tent" for such folks, it's just a minor battle in their larger war.

But your insistence that this is an assault on fundamental human rights is ridiculous. It could be nothing more than the fact that smokers stink things up for that large majority of people who don't smoke, and who do not believe that you have a fundamental right to stink up the room for everybody else.