Anti-Smoking Activist need to get priorities, and lives.

Funny how everyone is concerned about my health .I quess they need me healthy to pay for thiers . I read the Times online as LA is my home town .

If you need another one to push you over the edge...google "third hand smoke".

Check out my last rant on the whole third hand smoke issue. I was already over the edge.
http://pipesmagazine.com/thecigarsoldier/pipe-news/ets-ths-and-tsnas/
Couldn't agree with you more Bob!

I posted a rant elsewhere on the hypocrisy of anti-smoking regulations in public venues. Football pre-game and half-time shows usually involve fireworks that literally fog the stadium with acrid smoke; but dare not light up a cigarette!
Also, since the objections of fumiphobes are a pet peeve of mine, I would like to challenge the statistics they are quick to cite on the harmful effects of second hand smoke. On what double blind, placebo controlled study are these speculations elevated to the status of scientific fact?

Hasn't stopped them before.
In fact there is credible argument that smoking is actually statistically good for you and the initial scientific studie and subsequent ones based on them were a joke scientifically speaking. Lack of sample controls, ignorance of contradictory findings etc.
Not in any way trying to convince anyone. But remember we've been brainwashed before.
Here's a good place to start for those interested.

I also am frustrated with the government do-gooders deciding how and where we can smoke. On the other hand, I do understand non-smokers wishes to avoid exposure to second hand smoke (whether it is harmful or not). I view smoking in public the same way I look at any personal behavior in a shared space - somebody blaring their radio, or some idiot shouting on his cell phone.. basic consideration for others shouldn't take much effort. A little common sense goes a long way. Too bad common sense isn't common!
So my view is, if a commercial establishment wants to let people smoke, that's great - people who don't want to be "exposed" to second hand smoke can go elsewhere, and those of us who enjoy an after dinner cigar or pipe in our favorite eatery can do just that. It should NOT be a government decision.
I haven't seen any data comparing the toxicity of second hand smoke compared to direct inhalation of smoke. Seems to me the only difference between first and second hand smoke is the density of the smoke and any chemical change to the smoke caused by being passed through somebody's lungs once. I don't believe a single pass through some lungs would remove all of the "toxic" components, so for me the argument centers around density and exposure time. I think it would be extremely difficult to devise a test to prove or disprove harmful effects of second hand smoke.
So I'm sticking with the common sense approach. I happen to enjoy the aroma of pipe smoke, and I do appreciate the flavor of a good cigar now and then as well. I do understand that many people don't. Therefore, when I'm out and about with my pipe and somebody remarks that they don't like it... sometimes I put my pipe out, and sometimes I invite the offended party to go elsewhere. Works for me anyway!

Here's a quote for those anti-smoking Nazi's.
"I am convinced that if I had been a smoker, I never would have been able to bear the cares and anxieties which have been a burden to me for so long. Perhaps the German people owe their salvation to that fact."

Adolf Hitler

Yes, a historical figure who carried out one of the worse atrocities in recorded history. Then look up a list of historic pipe smokers. What a list of great people, who accomplished great things. To think the government would like to outlaw smoking, or tax it to extinction. In my opinion a dismal sign for our society indeed.

See what happens when you dont eat red meat ,smoke or drink .

I think we've stumbled upon something deeper here. The repressed tend to oppress?
I personally know that I become much more tolerant of others as I become more tolerant of myself.
And I observe that fascist governments are primarily centered around repressing personal choice and oppressing the masses to enforce the party line.
So to put this in current context relevant to tobacco, it makes sense that a government "of the people and by the people" would become oppressive when the "people" in question are repressed.
My personal belief is that we are in general terms a highly repressed society.
Or maybe Hitler was just a non-smokin, no meat eaten little bitch.