Comments on: Can We Just Ban Them and Be Done With It?

By: corprip

corprip — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:31:01 +0000

Good to see the faith in the free market to regulate itself still endures.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:10:03 +0000

I'm no proponent of nanny states or the long arm of the law imposing smoking bans. However your argument of comparing household items -- which are also carcinogenic -- to cigarettes is a little offmark. Cigarettes are meant to be burned (and are), while the household items are not (and don't, unless in a very rare house fire). Not the best analogy there. Sorry.

By: Benjo

Benjo — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:47:04 +0000

As it turns out, this article was completely fabricated, out of the ashes of an article about a completely different, and actually legitimate, problem: third-hand fart. My colleague Edward J. Albenstein wrote the original article and submitted it to the Times just before the new year. I detailed the whole chain of events, including excerpts from both articles, here.

By: Katy

Katy — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:54:10 +0000

I don't believe at all that adults are significantly harmed by 'third-hand smoke', but I do think there's a very real danger to babies. they have less ability to process these things, less mass, etc. Not to mention that although you and I do not snuggle up to the smoker next to us and sink our noses into their general stinky odor, babies get picked up by their smoker relatives or parents and often sit for long periods with their faces right next to the smoker's clothes - clothes which no doubt have all kinds of noxious chemicals deposited on them, judging from the smell of my clothes when I come home from a party. I think we do no favors to anyone when we oversell risks and danger and don't focus on the truly vulnerable.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:40:46 +0000

Tupperware is one word.

By: MatthewG

MatthewG — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:34:43 +0000

It also doesn't address the main problem with smokers and "third-hand smoke" which is that they smell like a homeless man's morning crap. Say what you want about the studies on health benefits, but there's no denying that smokers stink, that everything around them stinks, and that you will stink for the rest of the day if you stand next to someone having a cigarette. And then they'll act like you're the one that's crazy for not wanting to enjoy the smell of burning dog hair while you are in a restaurant.

By: Drew

Drew — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:15:10 +0000

Although there are reasonable limits to exposure to certain chemicals, the current hysteria is laughable.

We have an organ called the liver, people. A main function of this organ is to break down into eliminatable chemicals all the various insults to our bodies we encounter - naturally and otherwise. This organ is amazingly efficient and resilient. These chemical insults include byproducts of foods we eat, bacteria from infection, the bug you swallowed on your bike ride.........and man made stuff, like 3rd hand smoke.

Yes, smoking Camels is indeed over the top. But 3rd hand smoke? Get a grip. This is silly.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:21:42 +0000

Steve V. asks why not just ban them? Because there's revenue in them thar smokes.

Oh, banning cigarettes. I thought he wanted to ban the whiners.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:48:39 +0000

Steve V. asks why not just ban them? Because there's revenue in them thar smokes. Government can't just ban something that provides a revenue stream.

I know I was being somewhat sarcastic in my title.

We also have to remember if we start banning things there will be no end. First cigs, then alcohol, fatty foods, sugar, extreme sports, the list goes on and on.

Never liked the idea of bungee jumping, sky diving or skiing anyways. Get rid of them, I'm cool with it. Just kidding on that last one. Oh, and here is a link to the post the war between Nanny State Nincompoops in regards to fat kids and the inherent dangers of school playgrounds, with school shooting tossed in for shits and giggles. Here is the problem, a complete and total inability of people to understand relative risks, probabilities, and uncertainty, and a completely stupid desire to be safe from everything.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:47:03 +0000

Don't disagree with your overall tone but have to take exception when you start listing common household items, point out that they are like chemical weapons when burnt, but then come to the conclusion that this means we should all just chill out.

It isn't that they aren't dangerous, it is that people aren't running around like chickens with their heads cut-off over home fires.

Here is another example. There are now advocates to basically end even running on playgrounds. Why? Kids playing on play grounds can fall and get hurt and some even die. How many? Well when I was reading about the issue, 17 kids died. I looked for data on school shooting deaths and that the average number of children shot and killed at school was something like 2x that number or about 34 (per year).

Now...do parents get all excited and panic sending their kids to school dressed in a kevlar suit? No. So why get bothered about kids playing on playgrounds?

What is completely missing from these kinds of scary story pieces of Bravo Sierra is any form of relative risks. Your baby is probably more likley to die from a cobra strike than third hand smoke. But what the Hell lets phone some people, scare them then write up the results and get it published.

By: Steve Plunk

Steve Plunk — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:37:57 +0000

Steve V. asks why not just ban them? Because there's revenue in them thar smokes. Government can't just ban something that provides a revenue stream.

We also have to remember if we start banning things there will be no end. First cigs, then alcohol, fatty foods, sugar, extreme sports, the list goes on and on.

By: MarkedMan

MarkedMan — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:50:43 +0000

Don't disagree with your overall tone but have to take exception when you start listing common household items, point out that they are like chemical weapons when burnt, but then come to the conclusion that this means we should all just chill out. If there are any trained firemen out there, I'd like to hear what they say, but I know that common plastics found in say, airplanes, release fumes when burned that can literally wreck your lungs in a few breaths. It's no joke, and it's one of the reasons most people don't make it to the escape doors during (fortunately rare) airplane fires on the ground.

By: Clovis

Clovis — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:01:22 +0000

Shorter caj: Smokers=teh Ick. I would like to see a spectroscopic analysis of what goes into those Airwick cones that start rubbery and end leathery. No way those things are from this planet; they've got to be poisoning us somehow.

By: Floyd

Floyd — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:24:30 +0000

It looks like we're just one step closer to the point when reasonable people stage a long overdue backlash!

By: ken

ken — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:03:12 +0000

Smoking, like crapping, is not illegal. But both are actions that are subject to legitimate governmental control on when and where such action can take place. And if the government has no laws prohibiting people from walking around with feces smeared all over themselves it is because it is not commonly done. Smoke, on the other hand, readily clings to smokers who then walk around exposing others to their vile stink. I have no problem outlawing such rude and harmful behavior.