1 in 5? That surprises me. Smokers can't control their addiction for the hour or so it takes to drive somewhere? Sad.

Smoking Parents really dont give a rip about the health of their kids.

Jeff D- Not necessarily. I smoke, but never inside the house and never with the kids in the car. When I do smoke in the car, I do so with the window wide open to help air out the car. When I go out on the porch to smoke, I wash my hands after coming back in before I touch the kids.

AG99- they can if they care. This weekend I took the kids to visit relatives four hours away, and waited till we were at our destination to have a cigarette.

exactly, there are some parents who smoke who care about their kids. Just because I like to smoke doesn't mean i am going to also put my childs health at risk. I wish people would get all up in arms on other issues as well as second hand smoke, how about we start with the tap water our kids drink? How about the other thousands of cancer causing agents our kids (and us) breath and put in our body every day. Look up and see what Fluoride can do to the body if too much is ingested, but you'll never hear a dentist telling you to keep toothpaste out of your medicine cabinet. No they tell you how great it is!

I am very sensitive to tobacco smoke, and my mother smoked anyway. I had constant earaches and sore throats since I was an infant, despite frequent medications and three surgeries as a child. But they all disappeared when I was 13 and my mother quit smoking. I still get a sore throat when I encounter tobacco smoke, even from outdoor smokers. But the one place it didn't seem to bother me was in the car. She kept the window down and most of it escaped. I'm afraid such bans would eliminate what might be the safest place to smoke with kids, and smokers will resort to pulling over and smoking outside, where kids are within a few feet of it and don't have a draft to replenish the air.

I suffered enough for my parent's selfish addiction, so I have no tolerance left for smokers. Children do not deserve ear infections, respiratory problems, cancer or even the nasty smell that tobacco smoke causes. If your addiction is stronger than your love for your children (which it is if you smoke in their vicinity), then you're too horrible to be a parent. If you're already addicted and quitting makes you a grouchy old hag (which kids also don't deserve), then at least wear a patch so children don't have to suffer. There's no excuse for bombarding kids with carcinogens for your moment of pleasure.

Open or closed exposure is exposure. the stuff gets everywhere.

Your kids can still breathe that crap, even with the windows open. I know from personal experience, because my piece of sh!t stepfather did the same.

You would be doing more for your children, and yourself, by quitting. Don't you want to be there for your children, and possibly grandchildren, when you're older?

Smokers value the pleasure they get from a cigarette. They value it more than their children's health. Since quitting is hard and deprives them of pleasure, they try to reconcile their addiction and parental status with denial. What about fluoride? What about smog? Isn't there someone else to blame? Can't I pretend that smoking makes no difference compared to all the other unhealthy things they may encounter?

We can rebut those smokescreens (pun intended) all day. Fluoride levels in municipal water supplies are regulated. Toothpaste isn't swallowed, and toothpaste for young children doesn't contain fluoride. Smog warnings typically only affect sensitive individuals with asthma, emphysema, or otherwise poor health, does not occur in confined indoor spaces, and is not as acute as cigarette smoke. But it's no use. You can't reason with an addict, and besides, smokers are most concentrated at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum where people have less education and don't comprehend risk analysis very well.

Your kids can still breathe that crap, even with the windows open

With the windows down they can inhale all the pollution in the air also. Do you somehow think that the pollution isn't bad for them?

You would be doing more for your children, and yourself, by quitting

As I already stated I did quit about 8 or 9 years ago I think.

Really? Tell that to the family I saw just last week. Mom, dad and grandma were all puffing away when they got out of the car and pulled the baby out of the back seat. They might be related to the folks who brought their newborn twins to a local bar before smoking was banned in restaurants and bars statewide. BTW: California is one of the handful of states that prohibit smoking in a car when children are present. Of course self-centered, selfish idiots pay as much attention to that law as they do the law banning use of cell phones while driving.

Well, they do say it's one of the most addictive substances out there so I'm not surprised by their behavior. What amazes me is the kids who start in the first place. Are there any smokers who weren't addicted when they were teenagers? Are there any adults who wouldn't stop if they could? What is wrong with kids that they would degrade the rest of their (shortened) lives so thoughtlessly? We don't do nearly enough to stop the problem at its root.

Well, they do say it's one of the most addictive substances out there so I'm not surprised by their behavior. What amazes me is the kids who start in the first place.

That actually doesn't surprise me. Kids don't think things through very well or very often, which is why parents are supposed to be looking out for their welfare. The average age of smoking initiation is 12 years old. You can't expect much in the way of smart choices from a 6th-grader. When I was that age, I was trying to convince my parents that chocolate was a bean and so it counted as a vegetable. My mother was unmoved by my argument that it was a part of any major food group. My chocolate tasted a lot like lima beans instead.

Are there any smokers who weren't addicted when they were teenagers? Are there any adults who wouldn't stop if they could?

Almost none. Tobacco use in the USA has plummeted with the death of the Marlboro Man and Joe Camel. In 1970, nearly 50% of American adults were smokers. Today, fewer than 20% of adults are smokers. Of the current smokers, nearly all started smoking before they were 20 years of age.

A fair argument could be made that smoking is, in a way, a childhood disease.

What is wrong with kids that they would degrade the rest of their (shortened) lives so thoughtlessly? We don't do nearly enough to stop the problem at its root.

You've answered your own question. Kids are thoughtless. They don't get the concept of the future because their own pasts are so short that they have no point of reference. Parents (some, not all) do have such a perspective and so they are more realistic than a typical child would be.

The solution isn't simple, however I believe a measure which should be taken would be to expand child abuse reporting requirements to tobacco.

Tobacco is not difficult to detect. By that, I mean it stinks. Teachers and doctors are already required, by law, to report child abuse to authorities and it's really not up to them to determine yay or nay. If a kid looks like he's had the crap beaten out of him then they've got to tell the cops. It doesn't matter if the kid claims he fell out of a tree. 12 times. Into a pack of wolves. It's got to be reported anyway.

A kid around tobacco is a kid at risk, and he's going to stink like a kid who has been around tobacco. So, if you smell something, say something.

Well said, MeanGene.

I tire of smokers who decry their loss of liberty every time there is another smoking ban. Smoking is not a "right" until a person is 19. Before that, it's illegal. So no one under age 19 has the right to smoke, and if they do, they're committing a crime. If, after committing this crime, you end up with an addiction that follows you into adulthood when it is legal to smoke, you don't have much of an argument. It's not really a "choice" as an adult if you are influenced by addictions that were acquired illegally when you were young!

What amazes me is the kids who start in the first place.

I think the answer to that is partially that kids don't or can't think things through like adults and are subject to peer pressure.

But I also think a huge part of it is in the attitude exhibited by many posters here, who proudly proclaim that they smoke but always do it outside of the house and not with the kids in the car, etc. Well that's fine in terms of limiting your child's exposure to second-hand smoke - but you are still modelling a dangerous behavior, basically telling your kids smoking is OK as long as you are considerate of others. It's not. If you don't want your kids to smoke the best thing you can do is not smoke as a parent - not in front of them, not behind their backs, never. Model the behavior you want from your kids.

And don't fool yourself that you are keeping your kids away from your habit - your clothes, hair, etc. still reek of smoke no matter where you do it, and while I don't know if that residue brings in any dangerous exposure, I do know it is extremely unpleasant for those of us nonsmokers who sit next to you in a restaurant, work next to you, sit by you on the bus.

Just put the kids in jail, or take them away from their evil parents and enroll them in a nice safe military school, so they can be in perfect health when they join the service, and THEN it's ok for them to die. Don't worry about flame-retardants in soft drinks, or nitrates, hormones and "flavor enhancers" in food, that's OK.

I don't smoke, so NOBODY should smoke. I don't want anybody doing anything I've been told I disapprove of either. Only then will we have a free America!

Be like me! Be like me!! BE LIKE ME!!!

Did I get that right, so I can get my pat on the head from our would-be rulers?

The real "be like me" nazis are the smokers who decide that everyone around them is going to smoke too. "Oh, you don't want to smoke like me? Well then hold your breath!"

Really? Hows that work in "smoke free" cities? How about the smokers who have to stand in the streets rain or shine so they're far enough away from a entrance of buildings so they don't take any chances of polluting the air around the "pure" folks? If cigarettes were so dangerous, there wouldn't be any smokers, would there?they'd die in the first two months.

What the problem is, is that smokers do go outside, all the way away from the desks, away from the beloved computer terminals, and actually take a real break. Employers hate that, they should just have some healthy caffeine at their desks and keep working.

Also insurance companies jumped right in to this witch hunt, using it as a perfect excuse to raise rates. And if a smoker is blowing smoke in your face, it may be because you run up to them and yell in their face how you don't like it.

The question was asked if there was a person who wouldn't stop smoking if he or she could. Well, I would not stop smoking. Whether non-smokers can relate or not, smoking is something I enjoy doing. There's nothing like that first cigarette in the morning along with that first cup of coffee. Heaven! Or the first cigarette after work.

I don't smoke in my car, but that is simply by choice. It's too much of a distraction for me to pay attention to driving and keep track of smoking. I do, however, smoke in my house and I do have two kids. I have smoked in my home since we bought it and I have smoked around my kids since they were born. Neither of them has any allergies or asthma; neither has any breathing problems at all. Both of my parents smoked inside the car and house when I and my brothers were younger; none of us have allergies or breathing problems. Smoking just happens to be the socially acceptable way to discriminate against a set of people engaging in a perfectly legal activity.

Ugh, Gene, amen to the long drives with smokers. I once had to drive 5 hours with my then brother-in-law, who was a chain smoker. He was craving a cigarette before he even got in the truck (mine and my ex's, and neither of us smoke or allow it in our homes or cars). BIL's solution to fight the cravings - get drunk. So, we enjoyed 5 hours with a drunk addict still bitching about how he needed a smoke, getting sick because we were on curvy mountain roads. I was tempted to make him ride in the bed of the truck.

Spoken like a true addict. I hope you don't have kids, Jim C.

So you fill up your gas tank 5 times a day (at least), every day?

Exposure to carcinogens when you fuel up is minimal. Just don't try topping it off and it won't drip all over you.

Paul is right, the only reason they're reporting on this is to bash smokers again.

Yes, as a matter of fact, the air we breathe outside IS better than the air inside a car with the windows closed and someone smoking in it. BY FAR.

What kind of a ridiculous question was that to even ask?

Yeah, all the whiny *ss soccer mom types will be out in force trying to tell us how very, very special their spawn is.

@King, you seem to be under the impression that parents who smoke are idiots who leave the windows rolled up. *rollseyes*...wow, that's QUITE the generalization and assumption.

Isis - Some do, some may not.

In either case, perhaps you missed this part:

The CDC advises parents to not allow smoking in their homes and cars, and says opening a car window will not protect kids from cigarette smoke inside.

Unless you're suggesting that any time a parent smokes in the car, the windows are always rolled down all the way regardless of weather. In which case then there's the issue of whether it's freezing, raining, etc which is just a different problem entirely for the child.

And, I will state this: any parent who knowingly exposes their child to secondhand smoke when it can be avoided is, in fact, an idiot.

I have neighbors who go outside to smoke, forcing me to close my window(s) so I don't have to smell their stink. I have never smoked. I think the money they spend on cigarettes (and all the tattoos covering their arma and necks) should have gone to provide better for their children. Actually considering spraying them with the fire extinguisher. So all you smokers who think you're doing good by going outside to smoke, you're not. Go back inside, seal yourself in a closet and smoke all you want. Screw your damn kids, they're already fat and lazy anyhow.

When I rented, my landlord also had a no smoking policy indoors. No one will rent a unit that smells bad, and it's costly to replace the paint and carpet, so I understand the policy. But it just drove the smokers onto their porches, and ruined it for everyone else! I never got to enjoy my porch for anything. Just as soon as it dissipated, another one would be out there puffing away.

Dave 2267

I'm not one to defend smokers, but who the hell do you think you are?

You considered shooting them with a fire extinguisher? For doing something completely legal, outside, on their own balcony? What on earth gives you the right to be so sanctimonious?

If you do end up exercising your clear moral superiority and spray them with fire retardant, expect an assault charge.

It depends. I had a smoker above me who would just drop the butts without extinguishing them, and they'd sometimes slip through the slats on their porch and land on mine, still smoldering. That's a fire hazard. Another apartment complex in the area (not mine) burnt down because someone had "extinguished" their cigarette butt in a flower pot, and it ignited the dead leaves.

Oh boo hoo Atheismo. Climb back under the covers, it's such a dangerous world.

If you are so opposed to cigarettes "I still do not understand why they are legal", WHY don't you take the matter into your own hands? No one, except yourself, is forcing you to smoke. You seemingly want 'Big Brother' to force you to quit smoking, not take responsibility for yourself.

YOU CAN QUIT, if you exercise some self-discipline, will power and willingness to ensure the withdrawal symptoms. I quit after smoking about a pack a day for over twenty years. I tried various 'crutches', but nothing worked until I made up my mind that I was going to quit. At that point, I stopped, cold turkey, and haven't used tobacco since.

Agreed. I know I shouldn't smoke, but I don't punish my child for my bad habit. I don't smoke in the car, or in my house. I used to hate having to go outside to smoke, but now honestly it's a lot better. The house doesn't reek, no stains on the walls, and I get a nice little 5 minute break from everything as I go outside. Is it so hard to do?

You smoke outside and think that makes you a hero. It doesn't. You're stinking up the outside air too. Plus, you just can't comprehend how much you stink when you come back inside. EVERYONE notices it. You stink.

@ Dave - not to mention the example they set for their kids. I don't care if you tell your kids it's bad for you - the kids of parents who smoke are way more likely to smoke.

Agree with lovebuzz - no matter where you are smoking, you are modelling behavior that you (I hope) wouldn't want your kids to emulate. That's the best reason I can think of to quit. Imagine your sweet 7 yr old daughter or son as a 16 yr old with a cigarette dangling out of her mouth, as a 30 yr old whose clothes and hair always reek of smoke, as a 50 yr old with a smoker's cough, as a 70 yr old with lung cancer.

Still feel so good about only smoking in the garage?

Oh gosh, my parents were closet smokers too. My mom smoked inside the apartment with all the windows shut to conceal her habit because she was ashamed. Of course every one knew because she came out smelling like an ash tray, and apparently we kids did too, because all the neighbor kids made it a point to tell me. When I shared this with her, she got all defensive and said there's no way, and that if they know it's because I told them (which I didn't, because I didn't want anyone to know), and how dare I do that to her. She was always grouchy and angry about something, probably because of her unstable dopamine levels between smokes. By the time I was 13, I was the typical mouthy teenager and made it a point to belittle her for it. That year she finally broke down and quit. She really became a happier person, and my dad even quit cold turkey to support her. She frequently alludes to how mean and insensitive I was, because "you don't understand how hard it is to quit," but I've never believed that people should have to tiptoe around addicts, so I don't regret anything I said. I didn't deserve to be inundated with smoke when I was too young to escape, and she earned all the criticism she got.

@lovebuzz and myopinion, the people who say @!$%# like "kids of smokers are more likely to smoke"....well that's WRONG. My father smokes, he has my entire life, and I have NEVER lit up.

I have to wonder how accurate those statements really are...just because one's parents don't have self control, doesn't mean that their kids don't.

It's insulting to the children of smokers to say such things, to try and tell them whether or not they will smoke, because one, THEY ARE THEIR OWN PERSON, NOT THEIR PARENTS. There ARE children of smokers out there who were NOT influenced by their smoker parents.

Seriously addicted and unwilling/unable to exercise sufficient willpower to quit, eh? I guess you enjoy watching all that money go 'up in smoke'...

All of you smokers should try the e-cigarettes, or "personal vaporizers" as they're called. I smoked up to 2 packs a day for 35 years, and have not had a cigarette since I tried the e-cig. What you exhale is harmless water vapor, it doesn't smell, get on your clothes or hands, and you (and you alone) get the nicotine hit that prevents craving cigarettes. I have tried chantix (made me crazy), patches and gum (didn't work), hypnosis (didn't work), but this is nothing short of a miracle. I have 3 kids who are just fine, even though it was acceptable when they were young to smoke anywhere. I don't use the e-cig around kids, but again, the vapor is harmless. Nicotine doesn't cause cancer, it's the act of burning paper and tobacco, and no burning in the e-cig. This is by far a much better alternative to smoking and people should be made aware.

Very typical attitude there, proamerica. You are not alone in your "misplaced pride".

Ever hear of a sudden cardiac event? It's the heart attack that is going to kill you dead, just like that. No hope for any kind of recovery at all. One minute you're alive and kicking, next minute you're quite irreversibly dead.

Visit a morgue someday, you'll see. If you can make it another day. Tick, tick, tick.

Also, have you ever calculated how mush $$ you've spent on your habit? Don't you think that money could have better served your children?

So why is the individual liberty of the parent more valid than that of their kids (presumably, most little kids don't like being in a smoke filled car or house)?

Your argument starts veering off into the typical expanding scare tactic field of those folks who claim allowing gay marriage will lead people to marrying their dogs, etc... by the end, you're just spouting out nonsense...

I'm an adult and can make the choice to smoke or not.

Can you? If you're already addicted, then you're not really making a choice. You're acting under the duress of chemical dependency. Most smokers made that "choice" when they were minors and had no business smoking. If you started before you were 19, you broke the law. Only law-abiding citizens have any grounds for exercising their rights. Just because you aged and the consequences of that crime followed you doesn't mean you are suddenly a mature adult making a rational decision.

Very well said, NorthTxDad. I couldn't agree more, the way they're portraying it is crossing the line.

Lovebuzz - Liberty is not granted to 7 year olds or there would be no such thing as homework or brushing your teeth. You get that liberty at 18. Until then my kids are my responsibililty; Not yours, nor the state. There are obvious situations where the state has a vested intereste to basic life and safety, but that should be the exception, not the rule for every new study that comes along. I take care of my kids, love them, feed them, clothe them, make them wear seatbelts and bicycle helmets, do their homework, get exercise, show respect to others, etc, so they grow into healthy functioning adults. I don't need your help and don't want it or from some overzealous politician or scientist. We know that eating at McDonalds is unhealthy. We know there are all kinds of pesticides and perservatives in our food that we feed them. We know riding a bicycle leads to falls and broken bones and that some kids get hurt or killed playing football. Do we ban it all? Where do you want your rights as a parent to end and the state's to begin when it comes to decisions on your child's life and safety? It's all a decision that comes with parenthood when you bring that precious child into this world. You'll notice I said I don't smoke at home or in the car or around my kids at all. Again, my choice. The idea of letting the government get further and further in sounds rediculous, right? Did you see the recent story where the state tried to take a child from it's parents because is was too fat? And finally -- Gay marriage? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Unless they intend to smoke at the ceremony, I don't care!

JLM, I was 19 when I started. Dumbest, stupidest and most irrational decision I ever made. Yep, I'm an adict. You name the stop smoking program or product and I've tried it. I'm weak and it pisses me off to no end that those things have me like that. But ultimately, if I started at 19 or 9 or 29, it's my dumb@$$ decision every day to light up another one. I will pay for that decision in lifespan. I will never give up trying, though.

NorthTxDad, the point is that you're far less likely to make that decision as a 19-year-old than as a minor. Having your first cigarette at age 19 is rare. If all smokers consisted of people who waited until they were 19, we would have hardly any at all. Then it wouldn't even be a public health issue.

I don't disagree. I guess had the true information about smoking and addition been out back then I would not have made the decision I did. In 1976 it might have been well known but certainly not well publicized how dangerous it was. I was living in Germany at the time, too, which culturally pushed me that way. I blame no one but myself. Though I don't think at 19 I was much of adult!

It's called survival of the fittest. You are the weakest link. Quit your whining. Deal with it.

Scooteral, it's not survival of the fittest and that is a cruel and pathetic thing to say to someone who has a real physical illness. When you get sick or injured, I hope others treat you with more empathy and respect than you have just shown. You must feel very strong and tough insulting a complete stranger via an anonymous discussion forum. I feel sorry for you.

Pisces, you aren't weak. You're human.

Hate to say it, but whichever parent of yours that said you were "making up" breathing problems is @!$%#ed in the head. When a parent denies that there is something wrong with a child, doesn't believe them, and refuses to get them medical care, despite numerous complaints....well let's just say I'd be having a custody hearing.

I'd have gone to one of my teachers a lot sooner if that had been me.

I'm in the same boat, except my health problems didn't follow me into adulthood. I had chronic ear infections until my parents quit when I was 13. I do hope that smoking around minors gets banned. Even if it is poorly enforced, then at least children will have the right to sue for related expenses when they are adults. Your situation would be difficult to prove, since asthma does occur in children not exposed to smoke, and what your parents did was legal. It's a huge cost to society as well. Smokers are concentrated on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder, so their children are more likely to be covered by Medicaid for their health care.

Right, sue your parents for their parenting flaws. What a can of worms that will be.

@Scooteral, I did NOT say that kids should sue their parents. UGH!!!! Moron!!!!! I can't believe I have to spell this out.

I SAID that if ONE parent is denying that there is a VALID medical problem, then if I was the other parent, I'd be trying to get my child away from them, so that I could get them proper medical care. One parent that denies a medical problem is neglect, and I wouldn't subject my child to that parent.

I can't believe someone voted your comment up.....they must have crappy reading skills, too.

I did NOT say that kids should sue their parents for parenting flaws. HOW DARE YOU. You deliberately tried to take YOUR THOUGHTS, YOUR WORDS, and pass them off as mine, and then PURPOSEFULLY used YOUR THOUGHTS to misconstrue what I said, and then change it around to make me look like a bad person. NO NO NO NO! Screw that crap. I'm too smart to not recognize those damn games, so KNOCK IT OFF.

You must've thought I was stupid when you tried to pull that fast one.

FYI, I am not a regular smoker, however, twice a year when I go on vacation I enjoy cigars. When I get home I stop until my next vacation.

Sounds like a smoker. Is occasionally skipping your smoke break in the car going to damage some 40-year-old smoker? Find a real problem to get your panties in a bunch about. Sheesh, we have become such a nation of whining pansies. It's just a cigarette for goodness' sakes. If you need your nicotine that bad, wear a patch!

Yeah, yeah. Why don't we just require helmets for pedestrians? If it saves one life it's worth it.

but after having a heart attack then quitting smoking and having 5 MORE HEART ATTACKS within 3 months and 11 stents with a triple thrown in, I started smoking again.

Enough said. You discounted everything else in your statement.

I disagree. Why should only smokers get an immediate opt-out?

Yes...let's just opt out all fat people, all non-vegetarians, anyone who enjoys salty or sugary snacks, skateboarders, bike riders, or anyone who does something where they may injure themselves, anyone of African or Greek decent as they may develop sickle cell, all drivers because people get injured in cars and cars produce smog, and anyone born a preemie. While we're at it lets cut down all allergy causing trees and flowers stop children from climbing trees, remove all sports from schools, and wear helmets and knee pads at all times. Not to mention all of the violent movies, and games and any loud music. Yes Comrade, I see your point!

And you never will it seems.

Smoking bans don't amount to "mandat[ing] every little thing." This issue, with its enormous social costs and public health threats, have been discussed for a very long time. Unlike many activities, smoking has serious direct externalities. An externality is any "cost of doing business" that gets passed onto the public, rather than the immediate user group. Externalities have to be regulated. A good example is environmental laws, in which certain industrial byproducts are regulated to help ensure that industry is absorbing as much of the real cost as possible. If they just dump all their waste products into a water supply, then the cost of cleaning it up (or the lost value of that watershed) is borne by the public. That is part of the cost of manufacturing whatever good they are providing, but if the manufacturer does not bear that cost, but does bear the full benefits of the product, you essentially have society subsidizing the business. That is an externality. In the case of smokers, there are many health consequences to breathing direct smoke as well as second-hand smoke - particularly in the case of chronic exposure, as in children of smokers. Smokers may bear the cost of direct smoke inhalation in most cases, but it is non-smokers that bear the cost of second-hand exposure. This can be in the form of asthma, certain cancers, low birth weight, ear aches, and a number of respiratory problems; it is paid in the form of health care costs, lost productivity, pain/suffering and reduced longevity. Since second-hand smoke recipients do not directly benefit from the activity, but bear part of the external cost, it makes sense to regulate second-hand smoke exposure as well as recoup some of the social costs. Smoking bans achieve the former, and taxes achieve the latter (in theory).

To say that you can't regulate everything is a rather shallow assessment of the issue. You can and should regulate externalities, because one person's right should not come at the expense of another. In the case of industrial pollution, there is more of a balance of interests. Industry itself has spill-over benefits by contributing useful product for which there is generally universal demand, and in most cases this benefit outweighs the costs to society (as long as it is at least regulated to be sustainable). Most of us are willing to tolerate occasional smog so we can travel by fossil fuel-powered vehicles. (Even in the days of horses and buggies there were externalities; horses' excrement piled up in the streets and attracted swarms of flies which harbored certain diseases.) But not many of non-smokers can see a benefit to others' smoking, so we are less willing to accept a portion of the externalities.

Smoking is unique because it is difficult to avoid the externality. Someone else's poor diet, for instance, doesn't directly affect us. (Note that the health insurance rate increases that unhealthy lifestyles often incur is an indirect externality, which is not the same, and can be mitigated by systematic changes rather than direct regulation.) For as long as tobacco smoke drifts beyond the intended user group, it will always be society's business to regulate. (Note that nicotine gum, patches, and possible Smoke Assassin do not share these externalities.)

ditto

It's cuz they're all skipping class and smoking. :)

Now THAT is funny!

Actually, it was the CDC making this statement, not a bill in Congress. This article has nothing to do with government controlling people's lives. It's about distributing information relevant to public health. You want it censored? Just in case it inspires legislation?

What I don't like is special interest groups telling a government agency that they CAN'T study a certain topic because it might lead to conclusions that people don't like.

Data and information should never be locked away, regardless of which side of an issue the data supports. The problem I tend to have is that when the "Smoking Lobby" pays for a study don't be surprised when it comes out and says it's ok to smoke. When the Lawyer Lobby pays for a study on limiting tort payouts, what a surprise that the answer is that it is bad. The information should be available to the public for them to make an informed decision for themselves. I just want to know who did the study but more importantly, who paid for it to be done.

Time for helmets required for all pedestrians. In fact people should be required to wear a helmet when they leave their house. If it saves one life it will be worth it. The world is full of hazards.

And probably knee and elbow pads in case we fall down. Trampolines and swing sets are obviously signs of a non-caring parent and they should be flogged. Roller skates and skate boards leads to thousands of injuring -- Away with them! Recess leads to injuries and hurt feelings so that needs to go. Teen drivers are killed so nobody gets a liscense until they're 20. Drinking leads to drunk driving so back to Prohibition we go. Life is a risk. Some can be avoided, others can't. It's our job as parents to make the assessment for OUR children on what risks we are willing to let them take and when to say no. Some parents are morons, no doubt, and I'd love to smack any parent who puts a toddler in a car without a car seat, but that is not my place or right - as much as I wish it was. I just find it disturbing that people so flippantly think taking someone's child away is a viable option for smoking. It's really rather scary.