116 Comments

1. Eric McDaniel:

Today’s Puritans have returned to the godlessness (or, at least, the complete lack of humility and piety) of their natural forebear, Nimrod, and their desire to see his tower completed continues unabated. The architectural plans may look a bit different, but the project is the same. Perhaps if the impious structure had burned to the ground rather than collapsed under the weight of its builder’s conceit?

Aug 8, 2008 - 3:13 pm 2. skipdale:

The Puritan analogy wears thin when applied to poltical correctness today. Perhaps what explains the struggle is the battle for cultural supremacy among the elites of their time. It is now between the moral elements (nee Puritans) and the secular progressives. The former is in ascendency (led by Hollywood, the media, and academia) while the latter is in decline, at least until the advocats of morality and freedom seize the initiative. At the very least, the author is leading the fight. It is time the rest of to awaken from our slumber.

Aug 8, 2008 - 4:17 pm 3. morton from vienna:

Why should I die of second hand smoke inhalation just for your vain pleasure you a$$?

Judging from your pic u r a typical fat cat white republican jerk!

I want to smoke weed but I suffer and so should u!

You self righteous republican puritans don’t let me smoke my domestically harvested weed in the privacy of my own home.

Aug 8, 2008 - 4:36 pm 4. j green:

The puritan analogy holds to the extent that the people who are always trying to curtail our liberties in favor of the gre*ter good are always the progressives and Libs. Miniter doesn’t contend that the histrorical puritans were the fore-bearers of present day Libs. He contends that present day Libs now hold the position of being the new Puritans. The analogy holds.

Tobacco is a legal product and pt is not.

Aug 8, 2008 - 5:24 pm 5. Pajamas Media » Los Angeles: The Most Puritanical Place in America:

[...] the entire post here [...]

Aug 9, 2008 - 10:06 am 6. RedneckJD:

In law, there is a concept of evidence called “assuming facts not in evidence”. The usual example of this, is to ask “When did you stop beating your wife?”, without first establishing you do beat your wife. The health argument for these arguments is that we must save money and if these people smoke, drink, whatever, then we must control your habits. The fact not in evidence, is that the whole must provide health care for everyone. By the way, second hand smoke as a health hazard is not true, especially outside. And smokers die young, eventually saving money. Forget it, you meddling pigs.

Aug 9, 2008 - 10:38 am 7. meek22:

It figures, Edwards is just like all politicians. All of them have secrets. I just saw that McCain possibley might have a old DUI You can see Video at http://www.mccanes.com? Wonder what skeletons Obama has? If Obama picks boone Pickens as his running Mate. I might Just Vote for him. I read Obama was going to adopt some of the Pickens Wind Plan. You can read it at http://www.boonepicken.com I still dont know who I will vote for, I probably would of voted for either Huckabee or Hillary. It would be nice if the GOP would nominate a different candidate. Ive voted Republican my whole life. But probably not this time. Alot of republicans are very unhappy about McCain being the Nominee http://www.hotpres.com

Aug 9, 2008 - 10:48 am 8. ~Paules:

Lawnchair for the balcony: $5. One good cigar: $10. Bottle of premium bourbon: $25. Morton from Vienna: priceless!

Aug 9, 2008 - 11:12 am 9. Jvette:

Calabasses(sp?) CA has a smoking ban anywhere outdoors and of course in any business and even in your own car if the windows are down. Last year we stayed there while attending family weekend at my son’s school. Several times I sneaked a smoke in the parking garage before we left the hotel. I felt like I did when I was a teenager hiding it from my parents.

Aug 9, 2008 - 11:19 am 10. Cletus:

I will never stop smoking outdoors

Aug 9, 2008 - 11:40 am 11. Bobnormal:

I love my state but I can’t stand my Government.
Sound familiar?
Ca was a great place to grow up(I’m 45)good,schools,smog,the whole nine….but then They came,the Puritans,God help us if O barry makes it.
Bob

Aug 9, 2008 - 12:11 pm 12. Bill N:

I hope that all you smokers leave California and take your chemical weapons with you. Why should I be poisoned just so you can pleasure yourselves? I support the ban, not because I give a crap about you but because I don’t want to breathe your toxic waste.

Aug 9, 2008 - 12:35 pm 13. Richard Miniter:

Bill N: This is exactly the Puritan mentality. I deserve to ban and drive away all that you disapprove of, instead of meeting smokers in the middle for the good of social peace.

BTW, we are talking about a ban OUTDOORS, not in shared air space like an office or bar.

Take the outdoor bar at the Four Seasons in Los Angeles, a favorite of mine. It sits on the driveway of the hotel, separated from the cars by a row of potted palm trees. Is smoking out there really a harm to you?

Aug 9, 2008 - 12:42 pm 14. Ed Wallis:

TOTALITARIAN, not puritanical.

Please cease misusing the English language.

Aug 9, 2008 - 12:59 pm 15. Bill N:

Mr. Miniter:

You bet it is! What is nanny about me wanting to protect myself from you? I oppose all truly nanny laws. I support the legalization of drugs (except marijuana for obvious reasons). I oppose the seat belt laws, air-bag requirements, and bicycle helmets. I think the ban on fast food restaurants is abominable. Ditto the trans-fat BS. If you snort cocaine you don’t force me to get high, too. If you crush your skull in a motorcycle accident, what’s that to me? If you eat a dozen Big Macs every day, I won’t get fat. But if you smoke near me then I must smoke, too. To THAT I object. Yes SIR!

Aug 9, 2008 - 1:01 pm 16. Richard Miniter:

Bill N:

I can see your argument if you are talking about an enclosed space. But in the outdoors, smoke diffuses rapidly. And the car exhaust is likely more toxic than a fine Cohiba. And either risk is de minimus.

Environmental risks have threshold effects. High doses are indeed dangerous. But, below a certain threshold, there is no effect. That is why one molecule (or a million molecules) of tobacco smoke doesn’t harm you but billions and billions over years will.

Anyway, the second-hand smoke risk has never been proved. The studies that purport to prove it are all of non-smoking spouses with 40-year exposures… you are receiving a far,far lower dose. More importantly, the studies fail to correct for nutrition and family history. Once you do, the risk vanishes.

The reason is simple: inhaling smoke–what cigarette smokers do–is different than what secondhand smokers do. I presume, Roy, that you do not inhale secondhand smoke deeply, keep it in your lungs for 30-45 seconds, exhale slowly, and then repeat for hours. My guess is you exit the room in seconds.

Aug 9, 2008 - 1:31 pm 17. ~Paules:

Mr. Miniter,

You are trying too hard to make logical sense. Fanatics react from moral outrage; any real physical harm is irrelevent. Your smoking offends the new puritans. As do your beliefs and the fact that you freely express them. You, sir, are simply too offensive to be tolerated. And in the brave new world of progressivism, citizens have a right not to be offended. You probably also consume meat and secrectly harbor carnal thoughts of a heterosexual nature. Please report to the International Criminal Court at the Hague at your earliest possible convenience. It’s for your own good, you know.

Aug 9, 2008 - 1:49 pm 18. Nathan:

Someone never bothered to read up on the causes of the English Civil War. To slander the Puritans in that context is to slander our own forefathers. Charles I was executed for treason because he raised taxes without parliamentary authorization and incited war by Scotland against England. If regicide under those circumstances was wrong so was rebellion under much the same circumstances in America in the 1770s.

Aug 9, 2008 - 2:19 pm 19. Ed Wallis:

“Nathan,” Thanks for pointing that out. The totalitarians in California do not base their positions on religious tenets…but it’s a either (sincere) verbal laziness or (wilfull, typical Leftist) verbal co-optation to make “puritanical” and “totalitarian” interchangable.

Aug 9, 2008 - 3:29 pm 20. Richard Miniter:

Well, the Puritans made calling a parliament a dangerous prospect for the king long before the war with Scotland triggered the bloody civil war. And then they tried him in an invalid court and executed him.

if the Puritans had been willing to compromise, there would have been no war. Yes, the parliament needed to be strengthened against the king, but trying the king’s ministers, losing in court, and then passing a bill of attainder and executing said minister…clearly indicates a rapid and remorseless ideology than brooks no compromise no matter how small the issue.

Aug 9, 2008 - 3:47 pm 21. Mike Shuster:

I have to say I’m genuinely conflicted about this. As a non-smoker, it really is unpleasant to be on a restaurant patio where people are smoking, unless the tables are really far apart. The nuisance level of having to deal with the secondhand smoke is about equivalent to, say, someone playing really loud music in a public place, or a jackhammer next to my house, or someone drunk in public, or something like that. ( So I think it’s appropriate for municipalities to think about public smoking the way they think about other public nuisances. What that actually means in practice, I don’t know, and people along the ideological spectrum will have different ideas of what kind of public nuisance regulation is appropriate.

And while the author is correct that no secondhand smoke negative health impact has been *proven*, it hasn’t been disproven either. Various studies point in different directions, but anyway I don’t think that’s really the core issue jere.

Aug 9, 2008 - 3:50 pm 22. j green:

Nanny laws are really ninny laws promoted by blithering nutcases who would have been dragged into an asylum and cured with shock therapy in a by-gone and better era when common-sense prevailed. These are probably the same people who signed their mortgages, didn’t read the pertinent documents, and now need us (who they call idiots) to bail them out.

Aug 9, 2008 - 4:51 pm 23. brad:

Obama is a smoker

Aug 9, 2008 - 6:03 pm 24. Tom Holsinger:

Nah, it will come with a ban on off-shore smoking. Because it offends the gay whales.

Aug 9, 2008 - 6:11 pm 25. narby:

It all reminds me of Victorian morality. A rich upper class who seeks impose it’s morality on those lesser than themselves. All done in an a transparent attempt at pumping up their vanity.

Aug 9, 2008 - 6:11 pm 26. Richard Miniter:

BRAD:

well, Obama admits he was a smoker. officially he has quit, though he also admits to relapses.

But he has called for a nationwide smoking ban. Google it and see.

Aug 9, 2008 - 6:13 pm 27. Kurt:

I think the puritan analogy is a good one. Almost five years ago, in an early attempt at blogging, I wrote:
In the current climate, the tone and extent of liberal puritanism is almost overwhelming. By “puritan” here, I mean that kind of self-righteous ideologue who can tolerate no dissent, and who regards dissenters as necessarily evil, venal creatures that must be overcome. That definition probably needs some work, and yet it seems to apply to extremists of almost any stripe.

Aug 9, 2008 - 6:14 pm 28. jon:

The Pilgrims were not Puritans, they were Separatists. The Puritans came over a little later.

http://endtimepilgrim.org/puritans10.htm

Aug 9, 2008 - 6:22 pm 29. Zas:

Morton (Vienna) Your bile does your argument no good. Go back and read RM’s assault on 20th C. alcohol prohibition. Consider the possibiliity that this “republican fat cat” may actually be on your side regarding marijuana prohibition.

BTW, if you want to hold burn ganja and hold the fumes in your lungs, don’t expect a lot of sympathy about the lethal effects of outdoor second-hand smoke.

Aug 9, 2008 - 6:27 pm 30. Peter:

Disclaimer – I do not smoke. I do not like smoking or smokers within the olfactory area near myself. I do not care if you smoke if you stay away from me. Open your veins and pour in tobacco for all I care.

I will believe the anti-smoking/ban-smoking crowd as soon as they ban the taxation and sale of tobacco products.

Aug 9, 2008 - 6:35 pm 31. ZEITGEIST:

[...] RICHARD MINITER: “In the 1950s, the most puritanical place in America was somewhere in Kansas. Today it is Los Angeles.” [...]

Aug 9, 2008 - 6:37 pm 32. Roger Godby:

morton from vienna:

You berate Mr. Miniter about dying from secondhand smoke yet you live in Europe? Smokiing weed or, if you are truly in Europe more likely hashish, is far more dangerous than secondhand smoke. Sind Sie ein sogenannte Arschlog? So finde ich.

Aug 9, 2008 - 6:53 pm 33. Dan Tana:

The Economist magazine said it best years ago:

America, the decadent Puritans.

Aug 9, 2008 - 7:09 pm 34. Moe:

The ban has nothing to do with smoking in restaurants. That can be dealt with through health codes relevant to zoning classifications. The ban seeks to prohibit smoking anywhere that is not an enclosed space – like in the middle of a field with no other persons present.

If you don’t understand that much, you have no business commenting on the issue.

Aug 9, 2008 - 7:10 pm 35. Schuyler:

I grew up in Kansas in the 1950s. The big smoking area was outside the Methodist Church on Sunday Morning after services. The big drinking area was at the VFW hall on Saturday night. Lots of hypocrisy, but lots of indulgence also.

Aug 9, 2008 - 7:19 pm 36. Mike:

Peter, thank you for your post. The best way to scare the living daylights out of the anti tobacco crowd issuggest a ban onn the sale. They will come up with lines like,’if you want to kill yourself, that’s fine, but you have no right to kill me. Fair enough. I’ll accept that logic if the NYPD adopts a policy of telling suicidal people who climb the Brooklyn Bridge “you have 30 seconds to start making your way down, otherwisw we will shoot you down. Your right to do something dangeropus ends when you risk the life of a police officer who would climb up to help you. Motorists below are at risk and so are pedestrians on the walkway.

As a smoker there is nothing I would like more than to see the product banned from the marketplace. So do many other smokers I know. It would be a relief, NOW I HAVE TO QUIT, THANK GOD. The problem is I never met a non smoker who wants to see it banned. That’s because the loss of taxes would collapse the state economies of States like New York and California. I spent hours navigating trough the website of the American Cancer Society looking for anything calling for a total ban. After finding nothing I realized they are the very last people who want tobacco banned because they know where their bread is buttered. MYC mayor Bloomberg said it would create an underground economy for bootleggers. That’s true. However, within a generation bootleggers won’t even have a customer base. If it’s about saving lives as Bloomberg and others like him claim — THEN BAN THE PRODUCT NOW.

For those non smokers who think higher state and local taxes on cigarettes are wonderful, think again. States where politicians sre eager to constantly add more taxes to smokers are the highest taxed states in the nation for income and sales tax.

As someone who pays well over $7.00 a pack because of parasites like Bloomberg I make a point of never using a wastebasket to throw away an empty pack. When driving I never use the car ashtray. I always toss the finished butt out the widow. (However, I would never do it in times of drought if I am near trees or grasslands) With what I pay for a pack I have earned the right to litter. Even if I’m standing a foot away from a litter basket I will toss the pack on the round inm front of it.

Non smokers better wake up. The government is coming after you next. Obama tells us if we add air to our tires it would save the amount of oil we would get from offshore drilling. Wait a few years and the government will be banning fat people from riding in a car. Less weight, less gas. Fast food restaurants are already being targeted for higher punitive taxes. Before long we’re gonna see a story on the news about a mother narrested for “child abuse” for giving her fat child a Big Mac at Mcdonalds. Perfumes will be on the list for banned substances too.

Aug 9, 2008 - 7:21 pm 37. Mike:

Sorry folks,I was in such a hurry posting with anger that I never proofread my words for spelling, puctuation, etc… haha/

Aug 9, 2008 - 7:29 pm 38. seguin:

I don’t smoke, and I don’t care if you do. In fact, the sexiest thing that I’ve ever seen was a chick who blew some cigarette smoke my way in such s seductively, den-of-sin kind of way that just seeing ruby red lips around a cig gave me a stiffie for a year afterwards.

Guess what, nannies! We’re all going to die sooner or later, don’t you have something better to do than try to tell other people how to live?

Aug 9, 2008 - 7:39 pm 39. Daniel:

For those of you who believe secondhand smoke kills, please name one person who has actually died of secondhand smoke. Just one medically confirmed death. Oh, and you recreational boaters, recreational pilots and other assorted users of motorize recreation toys, the same argument could be used to prevent you from those pleasures. Smog is not to be tolerated, right?

Aug 9, 2008 - 7:42 pm 40. Wyatt Wingfoot:

Mor(t)on from Wien…

Lay off the weed, dude. It’s mad you a stoned idiot.

Aug 9, 2008 - 7:53 pm 41. George Ditter:

An argument against the misguided efforts of the LA City Council is marred by an apparent appalling ignorance of history. The Puritans did not murder their King, Charles I and ignite the English Civil War. Charles ignited the Civil War by attempting to subvert the English polity to establish himself as an absolute monarch. Since the Pilgrims came to America in 1620, its not clear how they could be the next wave following the English Civil War since that didn’t happen until 1640. I have no clue to what you are referring about killing the Indian who fed them one cold November. King Phillip’s War? The Salem witch trials had little to do with Puritan theology and a lot to do with mass hysteria, which since there were witch trials at various time all over Europe makes it a real stretch to fit into your hypothesis. Suggestion, next time you feel the need for some historical spend say 5 or 6 minutes doing a little research then dash the piece off in the 10 minutes you spent on this one.

Aug 9, 2008 - 8:11 pm 42. fanny5:

Anyone care to comment on the “puritan” contribution to the abolition of slavery?

Aug 9, 2008 - 8:33 pm 43. ~Paules:

Roger, I’m guessing it’s Vienna, Virginia. Morton’s vernacular is strictly American.

RE: The English Civil War. It should be mentioned that Oliver Cromwell was a humorless, self-righteous, fanatical bigot. Even so, Charles might have been spared but for his stubborn belief in the divine right of kings. It didn’t have to end in regicide, but when to immovable forces meet, one or the other has to give way or crack.

Aug 9, 2008 - 8:51 pm 44. Bill N:

Mr. Miniter:

De minimus? BS! Tobacco smoke gives me a wretched migraine. Forget scientific studies. Second-hand smoke always makes me sick, for real! The difference between automobile exhaust and cigarette smoke is that I benefit from your being able to drive to work. Find a benefit to ME from your smoking and I’ll reconsider my position. If you were to wear a helmet that prevented your smoke from injuring me I’d say have at it. In fact I’d buy you a case of unfiltered Camels. Until then I have every right to seek legal redress!

I have a right to own a gun (may God bless Mr. Heller). Is it nanny-statism to make it illegal for me to shoot it in the air? The odds of that bullet falling to earth and killing somebody are slim indeed.

I have a right to own a dog. Is it nanny-statism if my neighbor seeks legal redress because it barks all night? Even if I happen to LIKE the sound of baying hounds? Ditto my dog’s using your lawn for a toilet (your grass even likes that). Any health effects of either are “de minimus”. Do I not have any right to object to being annoyed to no purpose? How about if I buy a gallon of Taboo perfume (one of the most God-awful scents ever invented, although millions of women love it) and sprayed it at you whenever you walked by? Wouldn’t you object Even though the health effects are de minimus?

I have a right NOT to smoke. Your rights end when they violate mine EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK MY RIGHTS ARE DE MINIMUS! I will fight for my rights just as you are fighting for yours. I have the better case.

Aug 9, 2008 - 8:59 pm 45. Seerak:

BillN.

No, you do not have the better case, as you have not established that your hypersensitivity to the smoke is *normal*. I expect that it isn’t.

Barking dogs are legally actionable, because barking dogs are annoying and stressful for most people. Cigarette smoke, on the other hand, does not cause migraines and/or sickness for most people. So now you must explain why everyone else who either smokes or doesn’t mind the smell should be denied the choice just for your sake.

Ever wonder why we do not ban peanuts or peanut products from the food supply outright, lest someone with peanut allergy be exposed to them (even the smell is enough to cause trouble, so extreme is the allergic reaction)? Instead, we label foods that may contain peanuts and/or peanut antigens, and peanut allergy sufferers have to take it from there.

The difference is that peanut allergy is relatively rare; rest assured that if as many people experienced anaphylactic shock after eating peanuts as are annoyed by barking dogs, they’d be banned yesterday.

But they are not, and should not. Rights are a function of the nature of men, and are delineated by reference to what is normal and common among us all — they are not contingent upon idiosyncrasy, physical or otherwise.

Good God, what a nightmare of caselaw we’d have if that were true. (But then again, there is the Americans with Disabilities Act )

Aug 9, 2008 - 9:43 pm 46. peter jackson:

Bill N,

I see, I may only have rights if they benefit you. How noble of you.

Well you know what? As a vegetarian, maybe I don’t want to go into your favorite restaurant and smell the burning stink of your fleshburger. Kitchen fumes from cooking meat are at least as harmful as second-hand tobacco smoke (look it up), and, well, it offends me, just as tobacco smoke offends you. And everyone knows that meat is bad for you; the consumption of animal products kills more Americans every year than anything else, including tobacco. I don’t think it should be legal to allow meat to be cooked in public restaurants. And I think it should be taxed like crazy just to make sure morons who insist on eating this “food” for their own personal pleasure consume less of it. “For real.”

Ever heard of the slippery slope? Because I haven’t even started on the danger your guns pose to me and my family, not to mention your dog, or the tree in your yard I’m allergic to… ad infinitum.

yours/
peter.

Aug 9, 2008 - 9:52 pm 47. Harry Callahan:

if you want a look at how outdoor smoking bands work, check out seattle. the 25 foot rule has led to more confused shopkeepers and nazis neighbors than just about any law in the us.

nice to see la going moonbatty. how they would enforce that in a city of 4 million ought to be interesting.

Aug 9, 2008 - 9:55 pm 48. peter jackson:

And as far as the semantics go, I submit that a totalitarian is simply a puritan with the full courage of his convictions.

yours/
peter.

Aug 9, 2008 - 10:02 pm 49. Stosh2:

Bill N.:

Sir, it is apparent you have a number bizarre personal problems that you demand everyone in the world kowtow to. I suggest you relax, become human and practice tolerance and adapt a liberal approach to living in in harmony with your fellow man.

Aug 9, 2008 - 10:07 pm 50. Dave:

Peter Jackson,

Considering the consumption of meat (and the protein it provides) is the primary reason that man has evolved to rule the planet, I’m thinking meat is a good thing. Eat your tofu and devolve if you want. I’ll take my steak medium rare. If I don’t live to be 100 and a burden on my children, then so be it.

Also, you should pray that an armed, law abiding, NRA card toting citizen is around when some nut picks you or your family member as their next victim.

Bill N, It’s better to not post and let people wonder if you are an idiot, than to post inane comments like you have posted here and remove all doubt.

Aug 9, 2008 - 10:22 pm 51. peter jackson:

But Dave, you don’t understand, tofu is delicious. Don’t worry, you’ll see…

yours/
peter.

Aug 9, 2008 - 11:06 pm 52. Richard S:

Actually witch hunts were rather rarer in New England than they were in Europe in the 16th and 17th century. There was one major incident in 17th century Massachusetts, and a couple of minor ones, and that was it. Europe had several waves of witch hunts.

And is the chrolology wrong in the initial post. The Pilgrims arrived in Plymouth in 1620, a few decades before the English Civil War.

Aug 9, 2008 - 11:50 pm 53. Bill N:

All right people, lets try this one. Suppose I buy a fish, put it in a burlap bag and let it sit out in the hot sun for a few days until it is good and ripe and then carry it to the restaurant where you are eating. As soon as I see your cigarette smoke I swing the bag over my head and let the centrifugal force waft the stench your way. Could you enjoy your meal smelling that? Yet you demand the right to spoil my meal by smoking in my presence. There is no medical evidence whatsoever that smelling the effluvium from a dead fish is in any way harmful, and I would enjoy myself immensely in annoying you. Even thinking about it as I write gives me pleasure. What’s the difference between your smoking and my fishing?

If my cooking smells waft in your direction and it bothers you you have every right to complain and seek a redress of grievances. Do it! A colleague of mine at work once heated up a dish of Chinese Bok Choy in the office microwave. You better believe we all objected and the boss threatened to fire her if she ever did it again. Were we in the wrong? By the way, she was a decent human being: She apologized and never again brought in the stinking cabbage. She didn’t ignore our concerns, claim that Bok Choy was good for us, and that she had some God-given right to cook it whenever and wherever she wished. She never bothered us ever again. Would that smokers were decent like that. Because you are not, we are forced to resort to the law. We have that right!

So now the definition for unacceptable behavior is how many people engage in it. Good! The majority of people do not smoke. By your logic we are right and you are wrong, and we should ban your activity. Thank you, you made my point for me.

So it is ignoble of me to demand that I benefit from your smoking as the price for letting you force me to inhale along with you. I submit it is infinitely more ignoble to poison people *without* benefiting them. This speaks to the peanut argument. Millions of people benefit from eating peanut products. Despite what the abominable food police say, peanuts are good nutrition. Therefore, banning peanuts because a few people are deathly allergic to them is wrong. The world is not black and white. We must weigh the good and the bad. For you to annoy me just because you enjoy it is bad. Where’s the good? Forget my hypersensitivity. I only mentioned it to counter the argument that smoke is harmless, although it helps to explain my passion against it. You are justified in taking that prejudice into account, but I don’t think it detracts much from my argument.

I enjoy shooting. Do you feel it’s wrong for the law to forbid me from shooting at you even if I aim to miss? What if it’s only a marshmallow cannon?

I enjoy music. Almost *everybody* does. Sometimes I inadvertently play it so loud that my neighbors can hear it. Do you feel that the government has no right to demand that I turn it down after 10:00 so they can enjoy their sleep? Or for that matter 2:00 in the afternoon so they can enjoy THEIR music?

I enjoy chewing gum. Do you think the government has no right to ban me from spitting it out on the public sidewalk?

Stanley Kubrick’s film _Barry Lyndon_ is now out on DVD. Even though the plodding plot is often boring, I urge you to watch it for the incredible cinematography. When you do, pay close attention to the scene where Barry’s wife tells him his smoke is bothering her. He turns to her and deliberately blows some in her face. Examine your feelings for both man and wife. If you think there is nothing wrong with his response, then God help us all, you are a typical smoker, some of the rudest people on earth!

Aug 9, 2008 - 11:53 pm 54. Dukus:

Good observations, but you neglected to mention the American holocaust precipitated by the Puritans – the Civil War. To further the cause of “abolitionism”, they killed 620,000 Americans.

Aug 10, 2008 - 12:04 am 55. Richard Miniter:

Bill N:

Anti-smokers can be rude too… like when a baby boomer insists up put out a $40 cigar that isn’t even lit yet.

What you ignore, Bill, is that smokers have already made many,many reasonable concessions. They only time you see smoking in offices, courthouses, and so on is in old movies. Separate sections for smokers and non-smokers in bars and restaurants seemed like an ideal concessions, until the antis said, no, we want the whole restaurant and bar. Fine, we can go outside, into the elements, even tho odds were are buying more wine and steak than the non-smoker.

And now, you want to take away the outside option.

Do you see how many concessions have been made for your POV and none for the opposing view? Is that fair?

Aug 10, 2008 - 12:21 am 56. Richard S:

To finish the thought above. One can make the case that the settlers of New England were marginally better to the Indians than were the members of the Church of England who settled Virginia, or the Catholics who followed Columbus to the New World.

Similarly, the Puritans did make compromises in the 1640s, although not a many as some thought that they should have. On the other hand, one can argue that the Civil War was caused by the Sturarts, and their allies in their established church being less wiling to compromise with the Puritans than Elizabeth had been with their predecessors.

And it was Cromwell, for all is faults, who allowed Jews into England for the first time since the English (a Catholic people at the time) had driven them out in the 13th century. Remember what happened in York in the late 12th century–long before Puritans existed:
http://ddickerson.igc.org/cliffords-tower.html

What might have set the Puritans apart from supporters of the Church of England (which they wanted to “purify”) is that they tended to be stronger supporters of enforcing morals legislation. (On the other hand, Savanarola was not a Puritan). There might, in some way, be a similar social impulse behind the anti-smoking campaign.

And one final comment on the larger question of smoking bans: What’s wrong with letting restaurant and bar owners decide if they will allow smoking in their establishments and, if so, under what conditions?

Aug 10, 2008 - 12:24 am 57. M. Simon:

I want to smoke weed but I suffer and so should u!

You self righteous republican puritans don’t let me smoke my domestically harvested weed in the privacy of my own home.

And there it is in a nutshell. Puritanism begets puritanism.

Aug 10, 2008 - 2:03 am 58. M. Simon:

Tobacco is a legal product and pt is not.

and why was it made illegal? To punish Mexicans originally.

Drug War History

Aug 10, 2008 - 2:05 am 59. M. Simon:

Schizophrenia and Tobacco

Aug 10, 2008 - 2:08 am 60. M. Simon:

You berate Mr. Miniter about dying from secondhand smoke yet you live in Europe? Smokiing weed or, if you are truly in Europe more likely hashish, is far more dangerous than secondhand smoke.

Urban legend. Could you cite proof?

Here is mine:

Pot, What is it good for?

Aug 10, 2008 - 2:16 am 61. Rob:

Growing up in New York in the 70s, we were told was equivalent to smoking two packs a day because of the pollution. Maybe we should all just stop breathing?

Aug 10, 2008 - 2:39 am 62. morton from vienna:

my only point is that u have a lot of nerve calling us puritans just because we don’t want to inhale pollutants that contribute to my chances of getting cancer, our global warming problem, and etc. if you want to have cancer, go immediately inject yourself with the proper virus. As for me, I try very hard to not inhale pollutants thank you very much. and i try very hard to reduce my carbon fottprint by keeping my a/c in my home at 25 (76-77ish for the imperialist american system–using it only when i really really need it unlike u), i took Mr. Obama’s advice and pumped up my tires to above manufacturer specs (almost 50 psi) to compensate for loosers lioke u who don’t care (i even pumped my donut tire), and I try to cook on my grill instead of my house to not waste oil by cooking and not generating extra heat indoors that might trigger my a/c to turn on. I am contributing way more than people like you and you are sitting there comparing that the puritans won’t let you smoke ur puro and bush made the world fall apart meantime. Let them smoke cigars and eat cake you say!

I am an American living in exile finding that I constantly have to defend the
uneducated “American way” to the natives who constantly are teaching me new things.

As for pot, it has medicinal qualities. Doctors even back the absolutely undisputable irrefutable fact that pot is extremely medicinal. You can deny that fact also if you like, like you deny all other facts like secoind hand smoking and globl warming. But you deniers ar going the way of the dinosaurs, or do you deny they ever existed also????? You uneducated putz, try living in europe and see the rest of the world then you can speak to me from a position of enlightenment…

Aug 10, 2008 - 2:59 am 63. Bill N:

Mr. Miniter:

Ah, I understand a little better now. You believe that if you sit in the back of the plane and I in the front that your smoke does not reach me, or if you sit in one room of a restaurant and I in another that your smoke does not reach me either, or if you sit outside that the wind blows your smoke away. I can see how you feel that way: Since you have been smoking so long you can’t smell it in small quantities. That is most decidedly not the case with us non smokers. I have NEVER been in sight of a smoker for very long without catching a whiff of the smoke. That is why we fight rudeness with rudeness.

You, obviously, enjoy the smell of a good cigar. I deny that there is any such thing. Because it is pleasant to you you can’t comprehend how distasteful it is to me. I was not exaggerating with my dead fish analogy. The smell of a cigar is as distasteful to me as the smell of a rotting fish, and it sticks in my nostrils for many minutes. Therefore, when I catch even the tiniest whiff of your smoke I am disgusted for the rest of my meal, so yes, I ask for more concessions. Because you are unwilling to grant them I seek redress at law.

There IS a solution, but smokers have been too cheap to pursue it. If a restaurant were to build a smoking room with air locks, separate ventilation systems filtered to that no smoke leaks into the non-smoking section so that I never do catch a whiff of the smoke, then I wouldn’t object, since I would never know. Alternately the restaurant could build a filtered alcove for ME, so long as I could reach my car without smelling smoke. Such a solution would be hideously expensive, however. Merely erecting a partition doesn’t cut it. Absent that, we non-smokers will continue our pursuit of happiness and force you by law not to smoke in our presence. Sorry, but there is really no win-win situation here.

Aug 10, 2008 - 3:01 am 64. Richard Miniter:

Bill N:

I am willing to concede to you on all indoor spaces: back of the plane, restaurant and so on.

I am simply making a point about OUTDOOR smoking. Surely, you see a categorical difference, no?

And, for what is worth, I do not consider myself a smoker. I have never touched a cigarette and, in fact, find them vile. I prefer the company of a fine cigar, which has health benefits (slight in fighting depression and alzheimers) and costs (slight increase in mouth cancer). Cigar smokers (who have never smoked cigarettes) have the same risk for lung cancer and heart disease as non-smokers, correcting for nutrition and family history. So if cigar smoking doesn’t hurt the cigar smoker, how can it hurt you?

As for your air-lock concession, congrats. You are entering a wider world where one group does not dictate but searches for practical middle ground. However, why not let the restaurant, hotel and bar owners decide? They own the property–and air locks would be huge cost for them.

Aug 10, 2008 - 3:12 am 65. morton from vienna:

Bill N: carry on with “the struggle”.
We r merely trying to protect these people from tehmselves and they are too u8neducated to see it!@! this is unbvelievable!!!! so many of the world’ss savages remain on ur continent .

Aug 10, 2008 - 3:21 am 66. Ed Wallis:

Please refer to PJM article “The Messiah That Failed” for the following quote:

“The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau, what an alluring utopia!” – by Ludwig von Mises, from Bureaucracy.

It is misleading to misuse “puritanical” for these L.A. totalitarians.

Aug 10, 2008 - 4:22 am 67. melissa:

I SMOKE AND HAVE NO INTENTION OF QUITTING BUT I DO BELEIVE IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE IN PUBLIC BLDGS. I HAVE TO ENDURE OTHER PEOPLES BODY ODOR,PERFUME THAT GIVES ME MIGRAINES AND OTHER ASSORTED SMELLS OF THE PLANET WHICH I DONT CARE FOR.AS FOR HEALTH I CHUCKLE EVERYTIME I SEE A HEALTH NUT JOGGER IN 5 OCLOCK TRAFFIC BREATHING IN ALL THOSE EXHAUST FUMES.I THINK ELOISE SAID IT BEST IN ONE OF HER COLUMNS WHEN SHE SAID -YOUR RIGHTS END WHERE OTHER PEOPLES BEGIN.GROW UP==

Aug 10, 2008 - 5:06 am 68. PersonFromPorlock:

It’s a fact that even though Hitler was both anti-tobacco and a vegetarian, dinner guests chez Hitler were served a meat course and invited to light up afterwards. It’s not easy to slander the Nazis but the term “anti-smoking Nazis” actually does.

Aug 10, 2008 - 5:10 am 69. Mary Jackson:

Totally agree with the article. In the UK our nanny-state Labour Government banned smoking in offices (fine)but also in all pubs and restaurants. Pubs and restaurants had managed perfectly well with smoking and non-smoking areas.

Now smokers sit outside pubs, which in England is often very cold. So some pubs use patio heaters, which are not great for global warming.

At least they haven’t banned it outside yet. Nor should they.

I’m a non-smoker, but dislike intensely the rule of smokers having to go outside. Nobody makes people go outside to be boring. And boring people are far more irritating than smokers. In fact reformed, puritanical non-smokers are some of the most boring people on the planet. They should stand outside in the rain and bore each other, and let the smokers sit inside and puff away.

Aug 10, 2008 - 5:29 am 70. Bill in New York:

Puritans? Nah, liberals. Think “George Orwell” and “Doublespeak”. The “liberals” want to tell everyone else how to live, and exempt themselves from the same rules they want to impose on everyone else. Which is why Republicans and Democrats are all the same, a bunch of lawyers and carerr politicians who spend their lives at the public trough. I can’t understand why working American people don’t throw them out and start a third party that will live by term limits and more libertarian ideals.

Aug 10, 2008 - 5:29 am 71. Broadsword:

Bill N., how ’bout you wear a gas mask all the time? I’ll bet the moronic, ignorant, whale-oil burning, polar bear skin coat wearing, global warming penguin hating, self centered cheap bastard reel-publican whinging-it nuts would keep you supplied forever for free. Of course, no one would hear your tantrums an longer…Narcisscis eventually faded into an echo. I’m sure the insides of the masks could be made from reflecting pools. Whaddya think…(sic?)…er, whaddya feeeeelllll. Do you feel like doin’ it. Do you feeeeellll it would be fair? Do you feeeellll anything between your ears?

Aug 10, 2008 - 5:38 am 72. Martin:

So, tell us, pray do
if smoking is so horrid
why is it used for
salmon or real barbeque,
not to mention
the odd ham,
or old-fashioned bacon

Bill N…. get thee to a nunnery!

Aug 10, 2008 - 5:40 am 73. Broadsword:

Having tried snark, I thought, (past tense of think) I would attempt the “All men are mortal” tactic. Bill N., et. al. Why does your repugnance at the odor of tobacco smoke relieve you of any personal responsibility to take any action whatsoever? If you are now about to respond with the public health nonsense about 2nd hand smoke, would you not distance yourself from someone with the plague? Just stand there, stomping your feet, howling? Do you ever go into the wood-fired pizza places or eat at friend’s houses who grill (and burn) the burgers or tofu weenies? Would you rush to the backyard of unmet neighbors and spray soda water, (imported from the high meadows of the Swiss Alps, where glaciers eons past melted into the clear sparkling water…) onto their smoking grills at the merest whiff of smoke? If not, why not?

Aug 10, 2008 - 5:55 am 74. Andrew Ian Dodge:

Puritanical is the wrong word: fascists is more like it…health fascists. In some cases they encourage people to rat out those who do not abide by this diktats.

Aug 10, 2008 - 6:58 am 75. Don:

It all seems like a science fiction novel. The state takes more and more direct control of how individuals live (daily), the chosen reproduce, and the masses? Kept entertained with (barely) illegal drugs, encouraged to adopt sexual behaviours that (in effect) neuter them, promote cheap (and morality free) abortion and and encourage them to abandon making choices and taking responsibilities (those are prerequisites of the Superstate). Think of it, we lower the birthrates of the poor, less intelligent, less . . . And we build (selectively) an elite, bred to be caretakers of the (ever dwindling) masses that are too powerless/hopeless and genetically impure to manage their own lives . . . wait a minute!! Sounds like the modern “Civil Rights” movement!!

Smoking (like drugs) is (in the immortal words of Larry Niven) “evolution in action”. When we deny the stupid their ability to remove themselves from the gene pool we lower the overall genetic quality of the race . . . The progressives wish to accomplish the same thing by the “progressive” infantilization of populations (giving real choices only to the politically/genetically “elite”). So, what we have is a “survival of the fittest” (”strong will survive, weak will fall by the wayside”), vs “there, there, the state will take care of you, nurture you and make your choices”.

Sorry, rather live by my wits than trust the quality of the states.

Aug 10, 2008 - 6:59 am 76. CForr:

Interesting that the United Church of Christ (Obama’s Church), is a direct descendant of the puritans. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregational_Christian_Churches

Aug 10, 2008 - 7:01 am 77. CFB:

Since the health hazards of second hand smoke have been entirely disproven, let’s drop the pretense that any casual stranger is harmed by briefly encountering cigarette or cigar smoke either inside or outside. Anyone who would argue this is an extremist and a no-nothing.

Therefore, other people’s smoke is an annoyance, nothing more. I am annoyed by the sight of sleazy women wearing dresses the size of handkerchiefs. I am annoyed by men and boys who wear pants inspired by prison gangs, pants too large for freak snow giants, without belts (since belts are forbidden in prisons). I am annoyed by hippies accompanied by unleashed dogs festooned in bandanas. I am annoyed by mindless musclebound promiscuous men seeking anonymous sex on public beaches. I am annoyed by these same mindless men seeking anonymous sex in public parks where my children would like to play but cannot. I am annoyed that I am forced to see such patently self-destructive and disgusting human behavior if I wish to walk in a park that I subsidize with my tax dollars, yet cannot share.

All of these things, and many more, annoy me. And yet foam-at-the-mouth irrational, puritannical, totalitarian cranks like morton from vienna and Bill N aren’t calling for a ban on any of this behavior, or for enforcement of current (and indeed, ancient) laws against such behavior.

Why not?

Aug 10, 2008 - 7:06 am 78. CFB:

know-nothing

Aug 10, 2008 - 7:07 am 79. David Hinz:

The “Puritans” always begin their battles on solid ground, before striking out at other, more shaky arguments. Smoking is a good solid beginning.

Everyone hates smoking! Heck, even smokers hate smoking1 So beginning the attack against smokers was simply a “foothold” situation. From that impregnable height it is easy to strike out at transfats or red meat.

Thank God for “Wine Spritzers.” Otherwise, it would be a safe bet that evil alcohol would soon be in the sights of the Puritans once again.

Aug 10, 2008 - 7:22 am 80. Moron from venna:

I apologize for my shrill rant about Americans. And, I also apologize for my poor spelling. Please accept my apology as I forgot to take my medication this morning and small things really make me go BERSERK!!!

Aug 10, 2008 - 8:33 am 81. Bill Perron:

L. A. Is earthquake capital of the U. S. A. So they are building subways to the sea. Any government that does something that stupid can’t be expected to do anything correctly, they see smoking as a bigger danger than earthquakes. Maybe that is why this is called La La Land.

Aug 10, 2008 - 8:36 am 82. class factotum:

If you don’t like cigarette smoke, don’t go where people are smoking. Surely there are enough anti-smoking zealots that the market exists for non-smoking restaurants and bars.

Aug 10, 2008 - 8:37 am 83. ALP:

I live in Seattle and dodged the folks collecting signatures for the 25 ft smoking ban a few years back; I am still stunned the law passed. I did not give a crap about such a law, as I think should be left to the market – let an establishment cater to non-smokers if it wants to.

However, at the time, my downstairs neighbor was a smoker. During the summers, he would go out on his balcony and light up…and suddenly MY OWN HOME smelled like a bar.

So, like a few posters above, I am very conflicted. I would LOVE to have my OWN HOME free of smoke. At the very least, require smokers to have a fan to blow their smoke AWAY and OUT instead of UP!

Am I the only person that thinks tobacco companies should be hard at work in removing the SMELL from the smoke? That would solve a lot of problems.

Aug 10, 2008 - 10:08 am 84. Shocked!:

Puritans are also Hitlers Third Reich.

Aug 10, 2008 - 10:30 am 85. bs:

Facts not in evidence, you say, Redneck? Your assumption that the motivation for banning smoking is health considerations is one such. Just an assumption.

Smoking should be banned, in all public places, indoor or outdoor, because it’s obnoxious. The more places I can go to without being subjected to the foul stench, the better I’ll like it. So, who you calling a pig?

Aug 10, 2008 - 11:42 am 86. morton from vienna:

there is an imposter on this disappointing and mismanaged blog posting as me putting words in my mouth the same way you people enjoy putting the second hand aroma of death into my nose and lungs.

Aug 10, 2008 - 12:04 pm 87. j green:

Ok this Morton from Vienna is really disturbing.

when your theormostat is at 76 or 77 it keeps making the A/C turn on and off quickly which makes you use more power in the initial stage of it turning on, and you can burn out the compressor that way. That s a stupid thing to do considering that you are probably sitting ina pool of sweat all day long.

I doubt a cigarette or cigar will significantly heat up the planet and promote the alleged global warming.

You are probably inhaling more pollutants frmo car exhaust.

“and etc” is unacceptable gramatically, but then again, you think you’re a European so maybe you’ve forgotten English syntax.

Cancer is a tissue growth, I think some very rare forms might be caused by a virus but generally not.

The Imperial system is not an imperialist system.

If that was indeed Mr. Obama’s advise to overpump your tires then you and he are idiots. Overpumping tires can cause a fatal failure to occur with the tire. the “efficiency” gained is negligible. I hope Obama is ready to field a lot of lawsuits for his stellar advice of violating the tire instructions. 50 psi is a lot for the typical touring tire.

overpumping the donut is a dumb thing to do because you don’t use it enough to cause any of these purported “efficiencies”.

Cooking in your hmoe uses electricity or natural gas, not middle eastern oil. Using the outdoor grill, while more pleasurable, is merely diverting your fuel use for cooking purposes from electricity (whihc may be derived from coal, nuclear, or gas depending on austria’s power generation structure) to propane or charcoal, which pollutes more heavily than either (though still negligible).

I am sorry that you are an exiled American being “educated” (brain-washed) by the Europeans. I have nothing to say to this as this is so pathetic…

Pot’s mediciinal qualities are probably a scam derived by pot connoisseurs such as yourself. I’m sure pain relief from other sources can be just as effective. Stop comparing tobacco to an illegal drug…

Dinosaurs did exist.

Europe is no longer the center of enlightenment. It hasn’t been since at the latest 1776, and debateably since 1492.

Aug 10, 2008 - 1:43 pm 88. Richard Miniter:

When I ask anti-smokers (as opposed to non-smokers) why they simply cannot leave the decision about allowing smoking and under what conditions up to bar and restaurant owners, they always say: But that means smoking won’t be banned anywhere!

What they mean is this: only a handful of people are anti-smoking zealots, like Bill N. Most non-smokers do not mind as long as it is not blown in their face or a thick cloud that stinks their hair. Ventilation and smoke-eaters can solve the problem for most people. This is what most bars and restaurants would do, given the choice.

That’s why Bill N doesn’t want to give them the choice.

As for OUTDOOR smoking, the proposed ban there reveals their zealotry.

Aug 10, 2008 - 2:43 pm 89. peter jackson:

But the problem is the anti-tobacco people are *really* well organized, and most of them do harbor dreams of prohibition, and they’re perfectly willing to take it a step at a time. Here in Austin they came in several years ago and only went after workplaces and restaurants, leaving bars and nightclubs alone, and they also made an exception for restaurants who installed separate ventilation systems. Reasonable, right? Well they were back three years later for a total ban. There were a couple of restaurants which installed separate ventilation that somehow managed to legally keep separate smoking areas but all the rest who had gone to the expense of installing separate ventilation in good faith were simply screwed.

These zealots are like Terminators. They can’t be bargained with, and they absolutely will not stop until tobacco is as illegal as heroin. Mark my words.

yours/
peter.

Aug 10, 2008 - 3:45 pm 90. Jonathan Lange:

I agree with the author 100%! What most of you who object to smoking on patios are missing is that the establishments are PRIVATE businesses and they SHOULD be free to set their own rules about smoking or not smoking as they see fit. If enough people object to the smoke, the owner can decide on his/her own to ban smoking. However, if the establishment allows smoking and some patrons find it objectionable, they can frequent a NON-SMOKING establsihment. The same goes for waiters/waitresses. If they object to working in a smoking establishment, they’re free to find a job where smoking is prohibitted. Let the market forces work is what I say.

As to smoking in public areas, such as sidewalks, golf course or parks, common courtesy goes a long way. If someone politely asks me to put out my cigar, I generally will comply or move out of their way/across the street etc. But as the author aptly points out, the smoke dissapates very quickly outdoors and really is a non-issue from a health perspective.

KUDOS to the author!

Aug 10, 2008 - 9:08 pm 91. yoyo:

Mr green, you are right about one thing: Europe.Its a very enlightened place. Its where, after all, WW1 started, WW2 started, communism, marxism, pogroms, holocausts, Naziism, colonialism, and just about every pathetic, horrible movement and ideas. So anytime anyone says ” they do it this way in Europe”, I say we should do the opposite because thats why we left in the seventeen and eitheen hundreds and started our own country.And the one thing that still puzzles me, is why Europe still cant forgive us for saving them in 2 world wars and a cold war? Hmmm

Aug 10, 2008 - 9:43 pm 92. Fried Brains: Anti political correctness blog with cartoons » US Opinion: Why L.A. should be pushed into the sea:

[...] That moment may come with Obama’s plan for a nationwide smoking ban. Source [...]

Aug 10, 2008 - 11:45 pm 93. Richard Miniter:

I’ve updated the post to include a link describing Obama’s nationwide smoking ban plan.

Aug 11, 2008 - 5:47 am 94. HeatherRadish:

ALP, it’s still a free country. Move to a complex that disallows smoking, as is their right as a private business. Problem solved.

Progressivism, the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun that isn’t deviant s3x.

Aug 11, 2008 - 7:27 am 95. Jill D:

Those that whine about smoking prohibitions, always suggest that smoking is an “inconvenience.” Well, I have asthma. Those that smoke are not an “inconvenience” to me. They directly threaten my heath. Smokers always whine about their “rights” but they never worried about my rights when smoking was everywhere.

Smoking used to be in restaurants. They used to have it emergency room waiting areas.

Have you ever been in an emergency room waiting for treatment and had to beg those around you to stop smoking because they were killing you? I have.

Thus I have little sympathy for smokers. They didn’t care about my rights when things were the other way around. In my view it was their inconsiderate behavior that prompted the backlash that is today.

That said, I have no problem with smoking outside or in smoking areas in a restaurant. I may have to hold my breath as I walk by with someone smoking outside, but I can do that.

But at one time I was forced to endure smoking at the hazard of my health and life. Smoking was in the offices, I worked, the restaurants I frequeted, even the emergency rooms I had to go when my asthma was bad.

I got little sympathy from those too selfish and concerned with their own pleasure to care about my life. So excuse me, if I have little symapathy for those whining about the backlash.

Aug 11, 2008 - 8:26 am 96. John Moore:

NeoPures? NeoTans? TransPuritans??

Weak

Someone needs to come up with a better political pejorative to name these morons.

Morons? hmmmmm, nah, not specific enough

In all seriousness, those who want to bad cigarette smoking because it “is obnoxious” or want absolutely no smoke to invade private space are fascist zealots.

Good grief – as our host says, no smoking outdoors? There can be no excuse for this. It is just a way of banning cigarettes without giving the mafia a new enterprise. The proponents should say this out loud.

Aug 11, 2008 - 3:08 pm 97. Pro Cynic:

Sorry, Richard Miniter. You’re flat out wriong on this one.

Anti-smoking laws are indeed about individual choice — the choice of the non-smoker not to smoke. When a smoker lights up, the people around him have no choice but to inhale the smoke, which is foul-smelling, dulls the taste buds and carries carcinogens (and, yes, second-hand smoke is bad for the health of non-smokers; I’ll trust the surgeon general and my own lungs over the neo-tobacco institute). The choice of non-smokers in that instance is to either tolerate the cigarette smoke or leave. Which is a limit to the freedom of non-smokers.

Cigarette smoking is a drug-addiction, pure and simple. While I am for legalization of drugs and oppose the outlaw of tobacco, smoking affects not just the smoker. If it did only that, and when it does, go ahead and light up. But when it affects li’l asthmatic me, I have a problem with that.

Your position that it should be left up to the business owners has been tried and failed. The number of businesses that banned smoking was statistically insignificant before smoking bans. Smoking and non-smoking sections of a restaurant are like having urinating and non-urinating sections of a swimming pool. We’re going to get the smoke no matter what, because there is no commercially available air system that can take out the smell and carcinogens of cigarette smoke.

With the businesses, it is indeed a public health issue, no different than a ban on cockroaches, using non-spoiled food or keeping the place clean. If the ban was not in place, the businesses would go back to allowing smoking and we non-smokers would, again, have to choose between threatening our health or staying at home, because the businesses would invariably conclude that most would tolerate it.

But why should we have to make that choice? Because of someone else’s drug addiction? I don’t think so. We are not creating the problem. Smokers are, and it is largely because of the obnoxiousness of many, many smokers — who believe that they should be able to smoke anywhere, anytime and that the world is their ashtray for disposal of cigarette butts — that these bans are popular.

Furthermore, ever been at a football or a baseball game with someone smoking next to you? That’s outdoors, my friend, and it is decidedly unpleasant and even dangerous. It triggers my asthma, as it does with many, many other people.

Finally, I have seen people point out the pollution caused by cars and industry. The difference, I would point out, is that there is a societal benefit to cars (enabling people to go from place to place quickly, safely and cheaply) and industry (production of essential goods and the power to make them). There is no societal benefit to smoking. It is simply a drug addiction. Nothing more.

You want to addict yourself to drugs? Fine. I don’t care, unless you decide to drag me into it. Smoking does just that. Makes me pay the price for someone else’s drug addiction.

My solution: smoking should be allowed anywhere, except around a non-smoker.

Aug 11, 2008 - 3:17 pm 98. yoyo:

Its a funny thing, but when I travel to the Caribbean, especially Bahamas, I smoke my cigars everywhere. In elevators even. Certainly in hotels, casinos, restaurants, cabs etc. Inside. Just like the US was 20 or 30 years ago of my youtte. No one ever complains or makes faces. No one whines. I guess americans whine alot huh? Oops, did I just say that?Good thing Im not on any presidential advisory board.

Aug 11, 2008 - 4:46 pm 99. Ronald Biggs:

As Mencken said, anti-smoking zealots simply want to deprive us of a pleasure they don’t have. They don’t know how to live. We have more fun and get all of the good-looking girls. They want us to be as miserable as they are. HAHAHAHA

Aug 11, 2008 - 4:51 pm 100. morton from vienna:

Listen you SOBs! No one likes smoking anymore! This is a fantasy land you live in from a time when humankind was far less sophisticated. Now, sophistication dictated that we shun our vulgar attributesand you unevolved wretches refuse to do so.if you enjoy smoke so much, go turn your SUV on and suck on the tailpipe at the 52 gallong per mile rate at which you guzzle fuel.if you people had any sophistication, you would not constantly criticize freedom fighters as “terrorists” which you can lockup without the constitutional guarantee of a trial by a jury of their peers. What kind of idiots r allowed to blog on this evil website? Where the f*ck is the FCC–isnt obsenity banned?

Aug 11, 2008 - 5:25 pm 101. Can We Save Happyfeet?:

[...] Why L.A. Should Be Pushed Into The Sea [...]

Aug 11, 2008 - 5:40 pm 102. morton from vienna:

And just so you people get more free education from me, the fat woman in the hadnkercheif and the “sexual deviants” you hate, they are protected under this inconvenient truth called the Constitution… Go read it you fascists!!

Aug 11, 2008 - 5:46 pm 103. j green:

Morton is always factually incorrect and emotionally charged: Over 1 billion people smoke all over the world, so people do smoke.

Only citizens have constitutional guarantees. Unlawful Combatants (non-citizens) don’t have a guarantee of trial by jury of their peers, and they are not being held because they were charged with a crime anyway. Nonetheless, would you suggest we import 12 terrorist to sit on a jury as peers?

At least at Club Gitmo the terrorists can smoke indoors.

Aug 11, 2008 - 8:02 pm 104. Javelin:

Well, maybe it’s time the people in LA told their reps to shove the smoking ban and start kicking the illegals out. Laws like this get passed because the people themselves support it or don’t care.

Aug 11, 2008 - 8:16 pm 105. Bill N:

I have seen many comments here that would be much more effective if we could agree on a few definitions. Here are my suggestions:

1) A “Nanny-State” is a society that considers its members to be the property of the government and that the government has the right to protect its property.

Examples of “nanny-state” laws are the bicycle helmet rule, the ban on fast food restaurants, the ban on trans fats, and the tax on cigarettes in so far as that tax is meant not as a source of revenue but to discourage a smoker *for his own good*.

2) A “Puritanical” state is a society where the government prevents its citizens from having something they want or forces them to have something they don’t want based solely on some religious dogma.

“Religious” here does not necessarily imply a supreme being. Members of the urban terrorist group PETA are waging an effective war against medical research based solely on their evil religious belief that a rat has the same rights as a human. They are condemning millions of people to suffer and die of terrible diseases for which we might be able to find a cure if only we were allowed to look for it. So far as I know, such a belief forms no part of Christian, Jewish, or Moslem dogma, although there are a few religions that do teach that.

Examples of puritanical laws are the ban on off-shore drilling, based on the tenet that it can’t be done without harming the environment; ditto nuclear power; laws against gambling because God forbids it; outlawing guns, tag, and dodge-ball, all based on the religious tenet that if some people abuse a right then everybody does. No doubt you can come up with many more such examples.

There is no reason that a society cannot pass laws of either or both types, or that some laws don’t exhibit aspects of both concepts (e.g., the ban on gambling both because it is a sin [puritanical] and that it is bad for the gambler [nanny-state].) Such laws are evil because they deprive us of our liberty. Many such laws excite fierce passions on both sides. This does not make them any less evil.

Now, then, Mr. Miniter and many commenters here have confused the two concepts and believe that the ban on smoking is an example of one or the other or both. They are wrong, it is neither. Rather, it is an aspect of any government’s main duty: to prevent one of its citizens from depriving another of that other’s inalienable rights. Any society whose government does not protect its citizens from each other is an anarchy, and has never existed for long. Such a society’s government is quickly replaced, rarely with a democracy. The ban on smoking falls into this category of legitimate governing.

I have an inalienable right to life. Thus, the government is justified in preventing you from murdering me. I have an inalienable right to liberty. Thus, the government is justified in preventing you from kidnapping me. I have an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness (which, BTW, means the practice of, not the chase after). Thus, the government is justified in preventing you from annoying me.

However, the world is not back and white and there are exceptions to all of the above. If I point an unloaded gun at you and threaten to blow your head off, you are justified in murdering me if you don’t know the gun is unloaded and that I cannot possibly carry out the threat. If there is a reasonable chance that I might find some ammo and load up, then the government is justified in depriving me of my liberty by locking me away in a prison somewhere.

Which brings us to the annoying part (in both senses). There are certainly an unlimited number of things you can do that would annoy me. Certainly I have annoyed many people here. Yet we must prevent some annoying activities or the world would be intolerable. How to decide? In America we do it by the ballot. If the majority are not annoyed and do not feel that it is reasonable for anybody else to be, then there is no law passed. Fortunately for me, we non-smokers are in the majority now, and we feel that smoking in public *is* unacceptably annoying and have the right (and now the power) to prevent it. It is now up to you smokers to come up with a way to smoke without allowing the smoke to annoy others, just as you have to come up with a way to listen to loud music without forcing everybody else to listen in, too, or to walk your dog without allowing him to leave what my city calls “annoyances” on the grass. How appropriate!

Finally, a few random comments on other’s.

I HAVE worn a gas mask to prevent smokers from injuring me. I was required once, long ago before any smoking bans were in place, to take a 4-hour certification exam, without which I would have been out of a job. An hour in a smoke-filled room would have given me an incapacitating headache. With the mask (I changed the filters hourly) I was able to survive. It was humiliating, but I passed. Now it’s your turn.

I am justified in firing up my outdoor bar-b-que because the vast majority of people are not annoyed enough to bother to complain. Let your next-door neighbor grill some Bok Choy every time you sit down to dinner and you would be calling the police, believe me.

Mr. Miniter is not asking to smoke “outdoors”. He is asking to smoke in an outdoor cafe. There is a difference. I have to pass a pizza place on my way to the mailbox. There are always people outside on the sidewalk smoking. I hold my breath and walk fast. However, in a restaurant I have to sit in one place for an hour and take it. That is too much! If Mr. Miniter wants to smoke, let him drive home and light up there. We non-smokers are going ape over smoking ANYWHERE simply because there are too many Mr. Miniters who claim that the great outdoors is EVERYWHERE.

Who should pay for the abatement of a public nuisance, he who is annoyed, or he who is causing the annoyance? Should I have to wear earplugs because of YOUR loud music? Should I have to clean up YOUR dog’s “annoyances”? Should I have to take harsh opiates to cure my headache caused by YOUR smoking? Nuh-uh! It is up to YOU to abate your nuisance and pay for it, not everybody else. Maybe your tobacco taxes could be spent that way. I’d vote for that.

Lastly, I have based my arguments without considering whether or not side-stream smoke has been proven to cause cancer. I fully have to agree that the evidence SO FAR is not convincing either way. I am not afraid of getting cancer because of your smoke. I do get violently sick from it, but, as Mr. Miniter says, I am just hypersensitive. Smokers, on the hand are insensitive. I am at a loss to decide which is worse!

Aug 12, 2008 - 1:45 am 106. Doug:

If there were no proven deleterious effects on the health of innocent bystanders, smoking would unquestionably still be allowed in bars and restaurants. I work in a bar. Last year the city I live in passed a smoking ban. I’ve noticed a HUGE improvement in my health. In a normal year I would get three or four colds, bad ones, often lasting over two weeks. In the year since the smoking ban went into effect, I’ve had two very minor colds, each of which lasted a couple of days. All the stuff you hear about how bad second-hand smoke is for you, which incidentally W’s Surgeon General categorically asserted just last year (just for the record, though; he did not go so far as to advocate a nationwide smoking ban) isn’t just politically correct talk.

If there was second-hand fois gras poisoning, there’d be sentiment out there to ban its consumption in public places, too.

How about a ban on ugly checkered suits?

Aug 12, 2008 - 7:50 am 107. j green:

Bill N:

Lets establish another important definition crucial to or understanding of the subject matter:

Oddity: an odd person, thing, event, or trait i.e. Bill N.

The “pursuit of happiness” means precisely what it says. You cannot substitute the word “practice” for “pursuit”. They mean totally different things. As an avowed proponent of the second ammendment, I am surprised that you would stoop to such charlattanism as changing the meaning of words like others have done to the “right to bear arms”. Pursuit means that everyone should be afforded the opportunity to attain happiness, or restated that the government should not hinder one’s ability to pursue happiness. Its very different from what you say. You have a right to a climate or environment within which yuo CAN attain happiness–the government is not obligated to make you happy.

Nevertheless, by your own confession, you are a hypersensitive oddity (…I am just hypersensitive.”) For increased clarity, what you said is equivalent to saying “just I am hypersensitive” which means that it is only you that is hypersensitive. “Hypersensitive” itself means that you are abnormally, to an extreme, sensitive. So just you are abnormally, to an extreme, senstive to smoke. You also don’t believe that second-hand smoke poses the risk of cancer as the second-hand smoke ninnies claim (”I am not afraid of getting cancer because of your smoke.”) Granted these circumstances stated in your very own words, you are being extremely selfish in demanding I, who is very normal, live in the bubble because you are the oddity who is invonveniences by my pursuit of happiness (which, evidently, is not as important as yours).

Unless you were undergoing fire-fighter training or military training, I have no idea why in the world you would need to sit in a gas mask for an hour in a smoke filled room–especially when you are hypersensitive to smoke. It sounds like a stupid thing to involve one’s self with smoke given your abnormality. If I’m an abnormal person allergic to bee stings, I don’t go and grab numerous bees with my fingers and self sting myself as you appear to be doing by sitting in smoke. And if I’m an oddity allergic to bee stings, I don’t proclaim that we need to do a genocide of the bees just for my own individual benefit as an oddity of the world. However, I am not the oddity and you actually are one, and as an oddity of the world, you are trying to pretend you are normal and that you are entitled to happiness under the consitution, rather than a pursuit of it, all of which are wrong and extremely selfish.

And if you were an honest person, you would take a hard look at yourself and change yourself to be a better person rather than the bitter disingenuous person you are.

Aug 12, 2008 - 11:54 am 108. CHRIS:

The dangers of second-hand smoke are overrated.

Aug 12, 2008 - 1:04 pm 109. Bill N:

I am sorry, j green, but you are wrong. Jefferson used the term “pursue” in the sense of “pursuing a career”, not as in “pursuing game”. How in the world does this change my argument one whit? In fact, your incorrect definition helps my case. No, the government is not required to provide me happiness; it IS required to let me pursue it!

I used the term “hypersensitive” sarcastically because Mr. Miniter called me that, and his sheer insensitivity angered me, not because I believe I am an “oddity”. I believe I am far from the only one who is made ill by second hand smoke (cf., Jill D’s post). That I am made ill is nowhere part of my argument, only a counter to those who claim there is no harm in smoking. Your smoke *does* annoy me, however, and here I am not only not an oddity, I am in the majority! When you annoy the majority sufficiently you constitute a public nuisance. There have always been laws requiring that public nuisances be abated even if (especially if) the people causing the problem deny that it is one.

I wore the gas mask because I was required to pass a standardized written test as a condition of employment. It was given only a few times a year in places chosen by the examiners. People were allowed to smoke cigarettes in the examination room. Once the test started we could not leave, except for a break every hour before a new section was issued. We were all nervous (our jobs were on the line). Nervous smokers chain smoke. The air was unbreathable. An hour of that and I would have been blind with pain and totally unable to think or answer test questions. How considerate of you to call that “stupid”.

*I* am being selfish? You want to pleasure yourself at my expense and *I* am selfish? That attitude is precisely why we have to resort to the law to require YOU to be a better person (as opposed to a sadist).

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. So does your right to smoke.

Aug 12, 2008 - 3:09 pm 110. ProgMeister:

Miniter:

Obama doesn’t have a “plan for a nationwide smoking ban” … don’t link to someone’s blog comments about what they think they heard or know about “Obama’s plan” … if you’re gonna play a journalist on the Internet, then act like one and use verifiable source documents.

Now, with that behind us, three simple points: (a) I agree, the whole issue pisses me off; private establishments should be free to set their own rules and customers and employees can come or go as they wish, (b) what Obama said on 9/26/2007 was that he would prefer local rules but would support a federal law if the local efforts were inadequate, (c) you’re implying that the plan he doesn’t have would include a ban on outdoor smoking; there is NO reason to believe this or isn’t the case

I’ll be voting for Obama anyway; the nicotine nazi thing is not going to be stopped by McCain, Obama (both of whom have been smokers) or anyone else … it’s even becoming a pain in the ass to have a smoke in China, where ten years ago you could do more or less whatever the hell you wanted, so long it wasn’t critical of “the party”

Here’s a link to the transcript of the debate where he made the comments:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14313/

Aug 12, 2008 - 3:18 pm 111. Sheila:

OK – for the record, I’m an ex-smoker and I enjoyed every minute I smoked. Do I support a blanket ban? No, because while I now believe smoking to be offensive, banning it would just be the first step towards denying people of our civil liberties.

But smokers, please just accept that tobacco smoke – and particularly stale tobacco – STINKS. You probably don’t realise it because your senses are dulled, but if you ever quit – and can smell again – you will be shocked. 7 years on, I still apologise to some friends for stinking of smoke back in the day.

Aug 13, 2008 - 10:27 am 112. Dawn:

It’s really hard to get over the hypocrisy of someone who would denounce smoking let along OUTDOOR smoking but would suck up marijuana smoke and hold it until their head spins. Don’t you just love the over zealous health nuts?

Aug 13, 2008 - 11:36 am 113. morton from vienna:

I have a friend who used to smoke cigarettes. She and I still smoke some excellent marijuana together, but she quit cigarettes because of adverse health effects (sore throats often and etc) and in order to minimize second hand smoke for her 3 cats. Why should some stupid jerk walk around smoking disrespecting the fact tha she quit smoking, pray tell?

Aug 13, 2008 - 12:53 pm 114. j green:

Bill N:

No matter what the definition of “pursuit”, it doesn’t help your argument.  Both definitions are detrimental to your argument, which ever way you look at it.  “Pursuing game” in the happiness context means “seeking happiness” and in the “pursuing a career” sense it would mean “engaged in happiness”.  The differnce between “seeking happiness” and “engaged in happiness” is a nuance and the distinction is not relevant to this discussion anyway since it doesn’t help you either way.  Either way, the outcome is the same.

Furthermore, the “pursuit of happiness” is not from any sort of law, anyway.  It is from the Declaration of Independence, which holds no legal authority except to memorialize the colonists’ break with Great Britain.  Nothing in there has the effect of a consitutional guarantee, law passed by Congress, judicial precedent, executive order, ratified treaty, etc.  Thus your reference to a “right” to “pursue happiness” is NOT properly applied because you assert it as though it is codified in some manner beyond its actual scope.  I’m not saying it is a completely irrelevant document–just that the Declaration of Independence must be used in a manner more like the Federalist papers or the Anti-Federalist Papers, which themselves are not the law of the land, and certainly neither is the Declaration of Independence.  You can argue this all you want but, as John Adams said, “facts are stubborn things”.

One purpose, among others, for the founding of this country was for inalienable right to “the pursuit of happiness” (not a Constitutionally guaranteed right) but this is not the law of the land, as you pretend it is. 

You yourself eliminated the health risks argument and averred that you are an oddity (both by directly stating it and by describing how you took an exam which sounds similar in nature to an SAT in a gas mask to shield you from evil smokers in the room–thats just plainly unbelievable and I haven’t quite decided yet whether you are a lunatic, a liar, or both.

Therefore the sole authority you use is this “pursuit of happiness”.  Your argument falls apart when you disqualify this sole authority upon which you base the premise of banning OUTDOOR smoking.

Aug 13, 2008 - 3:20 pm 115. j green:

Getting second hand smoke is like watching a porno rather than being in it.

Aug 15, 2008 - 1:51 pm 116. TW:

I’m sorry but your version of Puritanism is very ill-informed and rather stereotyped. The Puritans had nothing to do with Prohibition, which was more of a product of 19th Century pietism and Christian Liberalism. I recommend reading up on the movement before making sweeping generalizations. On the other hand, I think you are correct that the LA Times should keep its nose out of the Bible and leave the exegesis for those in the pulpit.

Oct 2, 2008 - 6:24 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: