Couple demands halt to neighbor's smoking

I have nothing against blue collar - it's just that statistically speaking, the higher educated people are, the numbers go down for smoking. Not sure why totally, but it's a fact.

Prove it.

I forgot to mention that people have the right to have sexual intercourse also, but I wouldn't want that done in front of me either - some things should be done AWAY from other people and children and smoking is one of them.

You are, in essence, equating smoking in front of children with saving sex in front of them? The latter is perverted and illegal. I find that comment extremely offensive. You are really going off the deep end here. People like you scare the heck out of me.

"As far as I'm concerned, you should be soon up for a Darwin Award."

Nice answer. No addressing the points just wriggling, typical anti style.

"great (etc.) granddaddy fought in the this country's revolutionary war just so I can be here and tell you off."

He is probably spinning in his grave due to your support of further degradation of property rights.

""great (etc.) granddaddy fought in the this country's revolutionary war just so I can be here and tell you off."

He is probably spinning in his grave due to your support of further degradation of property rights."

He probably also smoked, at least a bit. Tobacco was very big then, and smoking from pipes the way to do it. Frequently carried in the small cockade straps of the "cocked hat".

Even if he didn't smoke at all, I've little doubt he'd be just incredulous at this clap-trap of absurdity.

it's just that statistically speaking, the higher educated people are, the numbers go down for smoking.

I have a theory about why this is.

A cigarette and a beer at the end of the day is the workingman's vacation.

They live closer to the edge, where toughness is admired (and necessary) and whininess is rightfully shunned as a sign of weakness. They also tend to be more independent and strong-willed.

Move on up the economic ladder, where the necessities for basic survival are taken care of more comfortably and worries about real issues like survival are replaced by "worries" like "Does my BMI meet current government standards?" or "What does this car say about me?"

So, overwhelmed by important anxieties such as this, they avail themselves of psycotherapy, which often drugs them into a comfort zone and sends them into a further downward spiral of narcissism.

But, thank God, they don't have to resort to smoking like the lower classes.

So, from my observations, the smoking Jihad is nothing less than class warfare.

Which is why the education and income level of smokers is consistently referenced by their "betters."

Actually, it is the vapidity of the "individual rights" arguments being put forth in defense of this lady, that makes leftist fascism possible. Here's the basic issue. The lady smokes outside her place, and the smoke and smell gets into the house of the guy next door. She is, in a very real sense, intruding on his private property, and she is, in the same sense, imposing real costs on him, because he must put up with the smoke and smell that he'd be much happier not having to deal with. In addition, the fellow has a very plausible claim that, in addition to being an annoyance, the smoke is actually affecting his health. The lady's claim is that it is her "individual right" to smoke, regardless of its effect on the people next door. In other words, she claims no responsibility for the effects of her voluntary actions, even when they impose costs on others. There is quite clearly a problem here: by asserting her "individual rights," the lady is imposing costs on others, who are unwilling to pay those costs, and she refuses to stop imposing those costs. The bottom line here is that this lady wants to exercise her "individual rights," without accepting the attendant responsibility of ensuring that her rights stop at her neighbors' noses. Which brings up the obvious question of what should happen when one abdicates one's responsibilities in such a manner. Should we side with the one who's practicing her "individual right" to smoke, or should we side with the fellow who's asserting his "individual right" to be secure in his own home? The answer is pretty clear in this instance: the ruling goes to the fellow on whom the costs are being imposed, and against the one who is imposing them on him. But when you focus only on the lady's "individual rights," you ignore all of those costs, which are really obvious to all. Your position of "individual rights" is thus trivialized, and it make the "leftist fascist" response more attractive.

Very well articulated and the point is taken,,,, but the width and breadth of personal space is not concrete or sacrosanct. Noise from next door, barking dogs, smells from the kitchen are shared. We are social creatures afterall and our "spaces" overlap, but this fact does not override the smoker's rights unless new law is written that says otherwise. If a man with chronic migraines lives next door to a family of 12, the man incurs medical costs as a result, does the family of 12 have to move? Surely not.

I'm a gal not a guy and my great, great (etc.) granddaddy fought in the this country's revolutionary war just so I can be here and tell you off. I'm a member of the DAR and I am a proud and patriotic American.

Well bully for you - I am the mother of a DAR member who's 6x great granddaddy also fought that war (as did her 6x great uncle Nathan Hale) so that on behalf of her I can tell you off.

I won't smoke around you and your kids just as long as you don't come around me and mine where I happen to be smoking.