http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=3688508&page=1

I particularly like how the photo shows a toddler in the same room as the smoker, even though this piece has nothing to do with kids + secondhand smoke, just a subtle reminder that smokers are a threat to children everywhere. THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

OK now seriously, you shouldn’t smoke while pregnant, in front of kids, or hell, let’s go all the way, in front of anybody who can’t stand it, and chooses not to be around it, or says Don’t do this around me. Despite being an on-again off-again smoker, and an intense liberal, I am/was in favor of banning it in public places. I wouldn’t want to have to be compelled to be somewhere that I believed would be a risk to my health (or be forced not to go there because of this), and I don’t think others should have to, either.

But this crap in California crosses the line.

The article cites reduction of fire risks and reduced clean-up costs. Well, damn. How about we ban fireplaces, candles, gas-powered stoves, boilers, lanterns, or anything else indoors that involves creating and maintaining fire or heat intense enough to burn wood? As for clean-up costs, there’s worse than cigarette smoke, believe it or not, as far as lingering odors in domiciles. Let’s start banning people from frequently using curry, moth-balls, good incense, garlic, ginger, or anything else that leaks into the drywall and remains pungent for a long time.

(Sarcasm ahead!) Otherwise, do what some hotels have done for years: charge a premium on smoker rooms. What’s another taxation, lien, or tariff for smokers? They’re already used to paying too much for their habit, a misguided effort to try to get people to stop. Guess what. People will find the money somehow, and keep doing it, all the while cursing you advocates of anti-freedom.

Again, don’t get me wrong here: I’m not trying to encourage anybody to start smoking, and I’m not condoning its continuance, really, either. This is about freedom to do what you please in private property, leased or owned, which, according to the connotations of the words of people in this article, isn’t necessarily an assumed right. It’s more or less implied that people are absurd for thinking like this.

Yes, just let us continue our sickly habit, whatever the costs are. As long as YOU don’t have to be around it, then what’s the big deal? Either I live longer and pay more taxes, or I buy my Cammys and pay taxes. You get the only thing you really want anyway, G-Man, so back off.