Smoking Bans

But it is still invasive.Pregnancy and the possibility of harm to a fetus present one of the better opportunities for a woman to commit to quitting smoking, and I would strongly support programs to encourage this. A recent study (saw in mag in doctor's office yesterday) said that exercise like walking could distract the smoker and reduce if not break the habit, depending on the person. This also had the benefit of making the mother more fit, which also benefits childbirth.Not all pregnancies by smoking mothers result in noticeable fetal damage, and there are a lot of people in our generations that had smoking mothers - my mom still smokes a pack a day and she is 89.The issue for me would still be individual choice over a sometime effect.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Semantic quibble: I support programs the encourage non-smoking as distinct from ones that discourage smoking. It's the carrot versus the stick.Seatbelt laws that impose fines on people for not wearing seatbelts and insurance regulations that failure to wear seatbelts can void your personal injury coverage if you get in an accident are programs to discourage the non-use of seatbelts.Taxes are also a program to discourage smoking. Imposing fines for smoking in restricted areas is a program to discourage smoking.Locking someone up to prevent them from smoking whether they want ot or not would be a different matter. So is driving, even with a seatbelt.I'm sorry, but trying to prevent something because of a perceived possible risk just doesn't seem to work - otherwise drug use would not be the problem it is, where much of the risk is due to environmental factors, such as needle born disease, that are due to the proscribing regulations rather than to the drug itself.I think the real issue is whether there are "costs" born by other people instead of by the person taking a risk.Take the example of helmet laws for motorcycles: is that to prevent injury to the cyclist, or is it to reduce the cost to society of providing long term health and medical care, rehabilitation, etcetera, to someone badly injured because they did not wear a helmet?Is the ban on smoking for pregnant women to prevent injury to the fetus, or is it to reduce the cost to society of providing long term health and medical care, special education, etcetera, to someone badly injured because their mother smoked during pregnancy?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I would be very surprised if there were, I was talking hypothetically about the issue. We do have bans in public places, bars, restaurants, airplanes, etc. to the point where it is difficult to smoke.My parents recently went through some very tough days. Their house burned, and they were forced into public housing. My mom smokes a pack a day, she has dementia and cannot remember 5 minutes ago. Needless to say she just keeps smoking, and they got ejected from a couple of hotels because of it. Dad got pretty strung out with dealing with it. I think there has to be some allowances made. That's what parents and the Darwin awards are for.

quote:

---

"Just think how stupid the average person is,
and then realize that half of them
are even stupider!"
--George Carlin

---

The Darwin awards demonstrate that you cannot make people intelligent by legislation.Now I don't feel like I need to be a surrogate parent for some really stupid people. Ideological laws always end up with contradictory or unreasonable applications, it seems to me. As in the Massachusetts law that requires hotels to be non-smoking buildings, and resulting in my parents being ejected. So I go for the pragmatic when laws are needed.Thus laws against people that steal and harm others that lock them up results in their being restricted from stealing and harming others is pragmatic if it costs less.One of the basic rules of parenting is to not give any ultimatums that you are not willing to enforce.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

And thank you. Dad is looking forward to designing and building a house that he wants to live in. At 89 he still amazes me. Just like creationists wanting to outlaw evolution, and idealists that want to outlaw chemicals in food (did you see the howling from the chemical industry because our first lady want's to have an organic garden and not use chemicals?) Maybe it is my libertarian leaning, but I think fewer and more general laws are more practical. There gets to be a point where there are more people in jail than out, and so many people in courts for petty crimes while the big ones wait and wait for their day. People going to jail for life for having three convictions on possession of marijuana is just ridiculous, and when you consider that lady jane is abundantly available in prison, it becomes ludicrous in the bargain.Boxing up illegal immigrants in your neck of the woods doesn't solve the problem and only adds to the cost - in two ways. It costs to run the camps, and farms lose labor and productivity. Exactly, there needs to be a reasonable approach to enforcement with discretion. Otherwise laws get applied in Orwellian ways. Was Stevens really a law breaker or was the lawsuit started to affect his political career to enable a democrat to be elected?Meanwhile Bush and Cheney ... Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

If we are going to talk about a law that bans a specific group of people from smoking, then it will be discriminatory.If we are going to talk about a law that blanket bans tobacco in all forms, then you just classify it as an(other) addictive drug, and allow companies and hospitals to do random drug screens for it.My brother worked for a company that required employees to be smoke-free - at home as well as at work - and they did random drug tests to enforce it.Personally I find that obnoxious and invasive behavior on the part of the company. As is any drug testing law.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

European Towns Remove Traffic Signs to Make Streets Safer | Europe | News and current affairs from around the continent | DW | 27.08.2006And it is easier for pedestrians to cross the street when the drivers become more personally involved.One of the marks of small town behavior here in New England is that people will stop to let pedestrians cross or to allow opposing traffic to turn left. And then as soon as the smoker stops, they light up, and blow smoke in the kids faces when they undo the child restraints?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •