Article

2004-08-13 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Smoke Nazis Toss Woman In Jail: It's For The Children!

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Raj 2004-08-13 3:17:15 PM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Has she thought about switching to Copenhagen?

Posted by Super Hose 2004-08-13 4:51:17 PM|| 2004-08-13 4:51:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm a pulmonary physician. I hate cigarettes. If I had my way I'd invent the perfect tobacco phage virus, and then learn to fly an agricultural biplane, the kind with the sprayer tanks. I'd fix the tobacco problem real quick.

That said, this is idiotic. We should NOT throw people in jail for being addicted to tobacco. The "evidence" of second-hand smoke is, in my estimation, er, a lot of smoke. It's nebulous, not done very well, and all we really know for sure is, "a lot of second hand smoke might be bad for you. Or not."

Far better use of our resources would be to give this woman a few months supply of nicotine patches and Zyban.

Posted by Steve White 2004-08-13 9:19:40 PM|| 2004-08-13 9:19:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I can't believe that the Nanny Police State of Liberalism has gotten its claws so deep into our country, but I guess it has.
Pitiful.
Land of the Free? Think again.

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-08-13 9:38:10 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-13 9:38:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Dr. Steve:

They say tobacco can ward off Alzheimerâs. Is that true? Is it just cigarettes (with all their additives that are cancer causing)? Can you get the benefits, without the risk, by smoking cigars/pipes with ânatural, unalteredâ tobacco? Just really curious.

Regarding this story, I agree these guys are going overboard â health and moral choices should not be bench decisions. However, the real problem is that this lady apparently agreed to a custody order whereby she would not smoke around her kids (e.g., "banned . . . from smoking . . . as part of a custody arrangement"; most likely a divorce settlement, with negotiated terms and conditions, later approved as an order). Now, I would guess, the issue is more one of contempt of court than the science of smoking. What this lady shouldnât have done was agree to the entry of an order, and then go ahead and violate it. What she should do now is either abide by the order, or go back into court to get the order modified.

Posted by cingold 2004-08-13 9:42:30 PM|| 2004-08-13 9:42:30 PM|| Front Page Top

15:53 Mr. Davis
15:47 Mr. Davis
12:21 Mr. Davis
12:20 Mr. Davis
12:05 Mr. Davis
12:01 Mr. Davis
11:58 Mr. Davis
11:55 Mr. Davis
11:43 Mr. Davis
13:51 Half
13:51 Half
16:14 Frank G
16:06 peggy
13:02 Federal Jones
08:28 Frank G
08:25 Gentle
08:24 Frank G
08:19 Frank G
07:52 Gentle
07:39 john
06:31 Bulldog
06:26 Bulldog
03:15 .com
01:54 Anonymous6075