🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <34D1EE2E.52811111@nospam.net>, Sam McClintock 
<mac-nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>I am thinking . . .   :<)

Thanks for thinking about it.  Most of our disagreements in the past have 
been political in nature (e.g., liberal/conservative).  I do not consider 
this to be that type of discussion.

>
>charliew@hal-pc.org wrote:
>
>> the people exposed to second hand smoke are spouses.  They can readily
>> leave any time they wish.  They married the smoker knowing full well 
that
>> the habit is bad.  They voluntarily had children with the smoker, 
knowing
>> full well that their children would be exposed.  If it normally takes an
>> adult smoker 30-40 years to suffer major effects from very high
>> concentrations of smoke, you're telling me that children will suffer 
major
>> effects in a few years from much lower concentrations.  I doubt that 
this
>> is so.  Even if it is, do you insist that the parents are either 
incapable,
>> unwilling, or abusive, regarding their children in this situation?  
Where
>> does big government end, and parental authority begin?
>
>Throughout the last five decades, most parents who smoked did so in pairs,
>e.g. both did.  I said nothing about being abusive, incapable, or 
unwilling
>parents.  Most saw/see nothing wrong with smoking around their children, 
yet
>all with a medium amount of common sense know smoking is stupid.  My
>mom and dad were smokers, they were great people, and I hated smoke
>when I was growing up.  My parents do not smoke in my house or around
>my kids.  But while I was growing up - in predominantly poor areas with 
all
>sorts of people who smoked - no one gave it a second thought.

I have the same memories of my childhood (both parents smoked).  Also, my 
parents do not smoke around my children in my home.  As a matter of fact, 
my dad gave up smoking years ago, and my mom gave it up in the last one or 
two months.  Hurray for progress!

>
>Secondly, to assume a spouse may have a say in the matter tends to 
overlook
>a whole bunch of research into problem areas of abuse.  We know people
>do not live relationships for all the right reasons and that freedom is 
not as
>easy as it sounds.  And it tends to overlook very simplistically that the
>spouse
>who leaves may be smoker also.

Agreed.  However, who decides what are the right "reasons" to be in a 
relationship?  This whole area of human psychology is very thin ice indeed 
for any form of government to be approaching.  Life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness are integrally tied to the various psychologies and 
mind sets that you encounter in various individuals.

>
>We have been passing legislation for decades about the restriction of 
polluting
>
>common property - air.  For the most part, those regulations on industry 
have
>done their work, as demonstrated in city after city in this country.  The
>restriction
>of smoking impact on common property -air - was a logical extension and 
long
>overdue.  Have we gone overboard in some cases - yes.  But that is the 
cyclical
>
>nature of both problem solving and politics.  Because of the country we 
live
>in,
>balances are formed and do take hold.
>
>Sam McClintock
>please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
>

I hate smoking as much as you do.  However, I hate big government 
bureaucracy even more.