PRINT ADS

" I don't want my house all smelly and gross. If the owner of a business doesn't care if I smell up his place, then why should I care? "

" A lot of you smokers won't even smoke inside your own home but yet you have no problem smoking next to someone in a bar or restaurant. How do you explain that? "

" Keep drinking that kool-aid. "

" Not really. If the Government issues a fine and it is not paid, it is as if the fine wasn't issued in the first place. "

" And as far as the Government paying your fine...where do you think the government gets its money? Right....you and me. So, to some extent you and I are paying for your fine. Oh, what a tangled web. "

" I never mentioned bullying. That was someone else. (Sep 10 9:52 AM) "

" Yes, and I happen to believe most of those codes and regulations are silly. Again, you asked my opinion and I gave it. Take it or leave it. Regarding fines, if I don't pay it, the Government does pay it, right?(sort of "six of one, half a dozen of the other"). Interesting that you mention bullying, as it is you who advocates letting the government bully business owners. Most business owners just wish to be left alone. "

" Come on. If you really think that you can run your business anyway you want then I want some of that kool-aid you are drinking. Most businesses have all kinds of codes and regulations they must follow. Just add 'no smoking' to the list. "

" You will not be in business long with that attitude. Do you really think the Government will pay YOUR fine. lol. Good luck with that. "

" What business do you own? I don't believe you own a business. I believe you are a big liar who thinks he's a deep political thinker but really just gets all his ideas from Rush. I bet you were the bully who sent kids running to the teacher. Don't think that's any better than the kid who got bullied. "

" Like I said, if they pay my rent, they can tell me what to do. Not before. They can pay my fine also. But, its nice to see that you intend to be a good little Nazi. I bet you were the kid in grade school that every other kid wanted to beat up and who was always running to the teacher. Not far off, am I? "

" Then be ready to pay your fine because I will be the first one calling authorities if you allow smoking....that is of course a ban against smoking in public places is passed. "

" No matter what the Government says, smokers will always be welcome IN my restaurant when they smoke(not outside loitering on my sidewalk). Unless the Government starts paying my rent. "

" The noose is tightening. Get used to it. And when the bans DO happen, I will laugh at you as you stand outside, freezing, sucking on your cancer stick. "

" Don't even waste your time. It is an invonvenient point concerning their cause, so they will just keep ignoring it, as they did the 9/5 3:59pm post. "

" James,

For the millionth time...NO ONE is forced to enter an establishment that allows smoking. When will ban proponents concede on that point???

There is no RIGHT to go out to eat or drink, just as there is no RIGHT to smoke wherever you want. The only right in question here is a business owner's right to allow a legal act on their property, which again, you aren't being forced to enter.

I cannot get over how mind-numbingly self-important people have become in this country. They've become SO self-important that they find it acceptable to infringe on a private property owner's right to allow a legal act on their property simply because they want to go out to eat or drink in these privately-owned establishments and have it be up to their every standard. "

" SGS SAID: "" Yeah but what about my rights to be naked? I don't see you standing up and expounding on the rights of the nude, just because my nudity might offend you. Your smoking offends me just as much or maybe more than my nudity might offend you. Bet you didn't think of that! ""

When your right to parade around in the buff affects a private business owner's ability to make a living and their property rights, I'll fight for your right to parade around nude.

Bet you didn't think of that! "

" Not to change the subject, but I really wish the government themselves would go back to the Constitution! A person doesn't mind paying their fair share of taxes, but a tax of $17.70 a carton in my view is no longer a tax its stealing and basically saying if you don't want to quit we will rake you over so that you will be forced to quit. (Doesn't sound like a free country thing to do to me) Heck, the tobacco companies probably don't get that for a carton... What do smokers get for this tax... 1. You can get some quit smoking stuff, a two week supply! (If I wanted to quit I would) 2. You get to go out in 40 below weather to smoke. I could go on, but you get the picture!! For the record. As for second hand smoke I haven't smoked in my own house since I had kids.. (my own choice) As for any argument that smokers get sick more! (I never get sick except for allergies) Like someone else stated.. All a ban does is opens the door to take more rights away from others down the road and opens the door for the government to socially acceptable to tax the heck out of the next item on the agenda... I'm getting off track here... But please... Pretty soon the government might be telling you how much toilet paper to use!!!
Let's get back to the Constitution:)

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/ "

" One has a choice to not go into a business where smoking is allowed. If you are sick, a hospital is the only choice you have.

The scientific evidence PROVES that there is no risk-free level of exposure to the Health Care System.
Gary K.

Total hospital caused death toll is from 140,000 to 200,000 and more than 1,500,000 injured!!

This article does not mention the fact that there are 3 times as many nursing homes as there are hospitals.
Nursing homes are notorious for their very low health care results.

VA hospitals are no better.

The total death toll caused by the health care industry is probably over 750,000 per year!!
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/07/07/healthcare-death-part-one.aspx

That is 12 times the claimed death toll caused by SHS and about 2 times the death toll claimed for smokers!!!!

The health care system is the leading cause of preventable deaths in this country.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/25/hospital-risk-pneumonia-ent-manage-cx_mh_0825riskhospital.html

Scariest Hospital Risks
According to The Institute of Medicine, a non-profit organization chartered by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, at least 1.5 million Americans fall prey to hospital error every year.

The mistakes aren't exactly minor, either. Between 40,000 and 100,000 people die every year because of shoddy handiwork, including surgical mishaps and drug mix-ups.

One big problem: Hospital patients may get the wrong drug one time out of five, according to a study by Auburn University.

Another 100,000 people die because of infections from hospital-bred bacteria that are resistant to one or more of the antibiotics doctors use to kill them off, according to the Center for Disease Control. Some of those might be prevented by more hand washing or other precautions. "

" I am from Marshfield, one of the cities who have a ban. This ban is a laughing joke.
1. It is hurting the businesses very bad, mainly in the bars. More and more people are going outside of the city limits to where smoking is allowed and they can be with their friends. There has been no new faces that has entered into the bars since the ban, instead fewer faces. Customers dropped 60 to 75 percent.
2. Popularity raised to bars in the surrounding townships where their business sored.
3. Outside communities are avoiding the nightlife in Marshfield where they go somewhere else or stay in their own community.
4. The biggest business day in Marshfield was Hub City Days where the events were held outside and the street was filled with people having a good time and are able to smoke if they want to. After the event, the people went outside the city.
5. Before the vote on the ban, there were a lot of promises of getting more business to the bars, restaurants, and clubs in the city from the smoke-free people. After the vote was passed, where are they? You cry, wine, and think that you are better. Shame on you! You got what you wanted, and now that you have it, you won't go to your smoke free places. It was all a show. Well, you do not have a standing ovation. When doors close due to lack of business due to a smoke ban, who is to blame? The smoke free activists, thats who.
6. Now we face a bigger dilema, a statewide ban. What happend here in Marshfield can happen accross the state. People out in the country do not want it, if they have to, they will protect their business and rights to the first loudmouth. Meaning, you tell, you suffer the consequences. That is the feeling in the deepwoods and out in the middle of nowhere where they are the law. The cities that have the ban are only cities, not the entire state. If they do not want to go smoke free, it should not be crammed down their throat.
7. I grew up with a smoker from 2yrs old on, and funny, I never got any complications from second hand smoke. My complications always came from ragweed. Did I want a ban on ragweed? No. If that happens, the farms will be no more. I dealt with it. Second hand smoke may affect some, but it does not mean it affects everybody.
8. There are so many different kinds of polutants in the air, how can they narrow down a person's health based on second hand smoke. If you live in a neighborhood with a smoke stack the lets smoke out regularly, and you just went to a smoke filled bar the other night, you get sick, which is the most reliable source? The smoke stack of course. I have seen more people get cancer from a smoke stack than from a cigerette. Wisconsin Rapids is an excellent example. The paper mill's smoke stacks causes cancer to the people on the west side of the river. Do they create a ban to shut down the smoke stacks? No. They deal with it. Wisconsin Rapids turned down the smoke ban because they do not believe in taking away a person's rights of freedom.
9. Now is Wisconsin Rapids Madison, Marshfield, Onalaska, Appleton, and all the other cities who have the ban? No. Stevens Point also turned down the ban due to the same reasons. Does that make them look like they want a ban or any part of it? No. The same reactions are around the state. The Indian Reservations do not want it due to it can do damage to their Casinos and pow wow events because some pow wows have a smoke ceremony. That is their custom, their heritage, their belief. Peace treaties were based upon smoke. You want to take that away?
10. When you start putting bans into communities and states, it opens up doors to future bans. Bans against businesses like fast food which is going on in L.A., then religion (anyone's religion that does not fit yours), literature (anything that you do not like to read, should not be read by others), heritage (just because it is not your heritage, there should be no others), how a person dress (just because somebody puts on something different than you, they should not wear it), speech (just because somebody talks slow or differ language than yours they should not speak), art (just because somebody's taste in art is differ than yours they should not create it), and then it goes to people (rich, middle class, poor)(get rid of the rich, they make too much money and it hurts the other classes)(Take out the middle class it creates more taxes)(Take out the poor, they are homeless anyways and disrupts the streets), then race (Anybody that does not fit your race should out). Then when it gets out of control, who is the blame? Who started it all? Do you get the grim picture? It will be a sad lonely world. "

" The moron above me who cites drinking yourself to death apparently has never heard of people getting killed by drunk drivers, or of pending legislations where more whiney do-gooders are attempting to enforce various obesity laws.

Every aspect of life has some level of unhealthiness to it, unless you want to live life like the boy in the bubble. I wonder if James guy ever stood next to a bonfire where folks throw plastic and other crap into it. Did he just curl up into a ball and weep?

The idea that smoking bans will somehow end smoking in bars is laughable, and folks who believe it will, ought to be forced to return their high school diplomas. Already there are smoking speakeasies in Madison, where smoking is banned. The ban is a joke.

The tax hell of Wisconsin isn't taking enough of the people's money, and you use more tax dollars to enforce some ban to make certain that old Earl and Mildred in the middle of Nowhere, Wisconsin don't light up in the bar they own? Give me a break.

Like Wisconsin doesn't have enough problems, that we would should be throwing money at an unenforcable boondoggle just so activists can feel good about themselves. Maybe if they would spend more time working, and less time marching, they wouldn't have any time to dream up such sillineness as this.

Prohibition has never worked. And even if you really really want prohibition to work, it still doesn't work.

I'm sure it makes them feel good to have their preference enforced on everyone else, but I wish all the whiney do-gooders would get real lives instead of worrying what everyone else around them is doing in private businesses, on private property, operated by private owners.

People who don't like to be in smokey bars, have every right to choose not to enter them in the first place. Not everything needs to be o.k. for everyone.

Get off our back and leave us alone already. I have one nagging mother, and that's quite enough. "

" Pro Ban anti-smokers always claim that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS as though it was a proven fact.

Surgeon Generals Report
Introduction, Summary, and Conclusions page 11
Major Conclusions

4. The scientific evidence INDICATES that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Note that the report does not say evidence PROVES that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke,the report says the evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to prove.

Sooo, there might be, there could be, there maybe is,we sort of think that;but,there is 'NO PROOF' that there is no risk-free level of exposure. "

" Pete claims:"There are increased risks of HEART ATTACKS, STROKES, RESPIRATORY PROBLRMS and even cancer among those exposed to secondhand smoke."
................................
I guess you feel that the Sur Gen's 2006 Report is full of lies?

Surgeon Generals Report
Chapter Conclusions

Chapter 8. Cardiovascular Diseases from Exposure to Secondhand Smoke

3. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.
4. Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.

Chapter 9. Respiratory Effects in Adults from Exposure to Secondhand Smoke

Respiratory Symptoms
4. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.
5. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.
6. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

Lung Function
7. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.
8. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.
9. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between chronic second-hand smoke exposure and a small decrement in lung function in the general population.
10. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between chronic secondhand smoke exposure and an accelerated decline in lung function.

Asthma
11. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and adult-onset asthma.
12. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
13. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
14. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and morbidity in persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. "

" James Middleton, you liberal schmuck. Keep your Bush hatred and Moveon.org hype and tripe to yourself. People don't fall for it any more and it has nothing to do with this argument.

So you anti's, I think it's time for a ban on dog ownership. Because dog hair makes me sick (allergies, it's true). And the wind makes my neighbor's dog hairs blow into my yard.

I'm also extremely offended at the smell of dog doo-doo that comes wafting into my yard - why it's intolerable. Furthermore, doggy doo-doo makes people sick, especially the children who love to pick stuff up off the ground. In addition, dog feces is polluting the water the PUBLIC drinks. "Dog feces contain billions of coliform bacteria. These bacteria contaminate surface water when it is carried into storm drains, creeks, and lakes during storms." Reference: Dog Feces Play A Major Role In Contributing To Water Pollution
http://www.yuckos.com/waterhealth/water.html

In addition, they create noise pollution with their loud barking that disturbs MY RIGHT to work in peace and quiet in my own home.

Dog owners walk their dogs on city streets I PAY TAXES to help maintain. They urinate and poop on those city streets and again, that causes pollutants, stink and even if picked up by a responsible owner, still leaves a residue that is dangerous to society.

Dog bites can cause rabies and kill people. Children are often the victims of harmful bites albeit not always deadly, but you know, we must do it "For the Children".

So, following your logic, anti's, i have every RIGHT to start yammering and griping for dogs to be completely banned from our society. "

" First, I want to make a point about the "polonium210" argument:
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/to-note-on-polonium-210/

Second, don't make any assumptions about me. I am not a smoker, nor am I a business owner. I have no overtly vested interest in the topic. I do, however, have a deep interest in rights and the truth. I don't believe in pop culture science and I choose to investigate and research topics before making a decision. As such, I have decided to support supporting rights over supporting whiny people who want their comfort and conveniences guaranteed by the government.

To that end, I firmly believe that you smoking ban proponents are in the wrong and I can mount a well-researched argument against anything you could choose to throw against us. In the end, this all comes down to the simple act that people like you don't like smoke and think that smoking is a disgusting habit; and as such, you seem to think that it's ok to marginalize smokers because you think that you're personal opinion in the right. Sounds pretty selfish to me. "

" Pete wrote:'
"SHS is especially harmful to kids,"
............................
Sur. Gen's Report-2006 does not mention any harm to kids from exposure in bars and restaurants. It only mentions harm from parental smoking,most of this exposure would be in the home.

Your arguement about kids has no bearing on bans in bars and restaurants.

SG Sez:
For instance "Chapter 6. Respiratory Effects in Children from Exposure to Secondhand Smoke

Lower Respiratory Illnesses in Infancy
and Early Childhood
1. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking

2. The increased risk for lower respiratory illnesses is greatest from smoking by the mother.

Middle Ear Disease and Adenotonsillectomy
3. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and middle ear disease in children

Respiratory Symptoms and Prevalent Asthma in School-Age Children
6. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and cough, phlegm, wheeze, and breathlessness among children of school age.

7. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and ever having asthma among children of school age.
Childhood Asthma Onset
8. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of wheeze illnesses in early childhood. "

" Of course there is no right to smoke. But to forbid business owners from allowing smoking in their business is a violation of business owners rights. "

" "I'm not really sure why it is that people like you seem to think that you have rights but others don't."
...............
They do not and a right to breathe smoke free/clean air is not mentioned!!

The US Constitution says this and so does Wisconsin's.

"All people are born equally free and independent,and have certain inherent rights; among these are life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness;'

PREAMBLE
We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect
government, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, do establish this constitution.
ARTICLE I.
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Equality; inherent rights. SECTION 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986]

All people are born equally free and independent,and have certain inherent rights; among these are life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov.1982; 1983 J.R. 40, 1985 J.R. 21, vote April 1986] "

" James, your examples are nonsensical.

Each example includes someone who is "nearby". But if you are "nearby" a smoker in a smoker-friendly bar, it is only because you have CHOSEN to be "nearby". You can, of course, choose NOT to be "nearby", and you do that by avoiding the bar altogether.

Now let's examine your example about drinking. I'll have to disagree with your claim that a person drinking himself to death has no potential impact on me. To the contrary, I am exposed the the dangers of "secondhand drinking" when the drunk leaves the bar and gets into his car to drive home. Unlike the nonsmoker who can easily avoid the smoker's secondhand smoke in the bar, I cannot avoid the drunk's "secondhand drinking". Both the drunk driver and I have to share the same roads, I can't always tell who's a drunk driver and who's not. "

" J.Middleton wrote:" you do not have a right to kill others with those sidestream smoke poisons and toxins and radioactive agents"
......................
Sir, could you please be so kind as to state just which chemicals you are referring to.

How much of them is in SHS and what are the govt permissible exposure levels that are being exceeded? "

" There is no "right to smoke". Courts in several states with smoking bans in effect have already made that very clear. Never mind that no jurisdiction is banning people from smoking everywhere. As a matter of fact, there are still many places where people can smoke in every one of the 50 states. You just can't smoke where smoking has a negative impact on the 80% of the adult population who don't smoke. Secondhand smoke has been proven in many studies to be a toxin and carcinogen to non-smokers of all age groups, and is especially harmful to kids, the elderly, and the many people with existing medical conditions. There are increased risks of heart attacks, strokes, respiratory problems and even cancer among those exposed to secondhand smoke. Indoor smoking bans in all workplaces should be the norm, and make all the sense in the world. "

" Ryan, you're just saying that because you want to be able to smoke wherever you want. Just admit that smoking is way ickier than nudity, and then try to justify why you can smoke at the bar down the street but I can't go around naked. "

" "Yeah but what about my rights to be naked?"

Don't get me wrong, I think that public decency laws are just about as silly as the rest of the laws that are more about morality than public safety. I see nothing wrong with somebody who wants to go around naked. It's their own deal, and I don't think that there should be laws against it. Others may take issue with it though.

Of course, that's the whole point. Even if there were no laws against public nudity, society would see to it that it is taken care of. Just like smoking... If people have such an issue with smoking, then the MASSES and society as a whole should take care of it. If all nonsmokers suddenly ONLY patronized NONSMOKING places, there would be no market for smoking-friendly places and they would be forced to change or perish.

Why is this simple truth so hard for you people to wrap your minds around? "

" "there is no right to smoke - where is that written in the Constitution ?"

Here's a better question for you. Where is it written that you don't have the right to do so? You have a choice. No person who is exposed to smoke is exposed involuntarily. If you think that, then you also think that you have the innate right to walk through the door of a private establishment... Which you don't.

I'm not really sure why it is that people like you seem to think that you have rights but others don't. Sure, you most certainly do have the right to breathe clean air and to not be exposed to smoke. Nobody is refuting that. But what you do not have the right to do - no matter how much you may stomp your foot and cry about it - is to force everybody else to make you comfortable and allow you the freedom to go wherever you want to.

Seriously, I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, James, but your grasp of rights is woefully pathetic and interestingly you did nothing but prove the exact point of my letter here. Go to the library and sit down over a few books on the founding fathers and original intent. If you don't like the fact that you don't have collective rights in lieu of individual rights, then you're living in the wrong country and I would simply ask that you stop trying to force your collectivist ideals upon the rest of us happy individuals. "

" Yeah but what about my rights to be naked? I don't see you standing up and expounding on the rights of the nude, just because my nudity might offend you. Your smoking offends me just as much or maybe more than my nudity might offend you. Bet you didn't think of that! "

" An individual Non-smokers personal preference for a Smoke Free environment is irrelevant to the business and property owner that has spent their time, energy and resources in designing an environment that is specifically aimed at enticing citizens that smoke into patronizing their establishments. Non-Smokers are always welcome of course, but their personal preferences end at the front door of businesses where smoking is obviously permitted, since they are aware that to cross that threshold of their own volition means they would be assuming personal responsibility for doing so. (something that the most militant non-smokers seem intent on avoiding)Fortunately for them in a Free Society they have the right to do so, but make no mistake, by ignoring their own personal preference for a Smoke Free environment, they also surrender any imagined "right" they think they have to complain about the enviroment that they chose to enter. How is the poor decision making skills of non-smokers even remotely the responsibility of those business owners?
Non-smoking potential employees are no less capable of avoiding such environments.

Under most Smoking ban ordinances, the rights of Non-smokers most certainly do infringe on the Freedom of Assembly of likeminded individuals without government interference. A state mandated preference for Non-smokers Rights by business and property owners is disruptive to the freedom of expression exhibited by smoking patrons in the personal choices they make while in an environment specifically designed to be conducive to their assembly and as the preferred GUESTS of those establishments. These are business and property owners that are now FORCED BY LAW to provide PREFERENTIAL accommodations to Non-smokers AT THE COST OF THE OWNERS FREEDOM to decide whats best for their business.
The RIGHT to consider all available options for how to achieve full profitability of their business IS NOW PROHIBITED BY LAW.

Basically in states where this socialism is allowed to exist, the less than responsible governments are saying, "We don't want you to succeed on your own terms, but we will allow you to remain in business if you specifically discriminate against people that smoke"

Contrary to Tobacco Control propaganda, the Freedoms, Rights and Civil Liberties of Non-smokers do not preempt the Freedoms, Rights and Civil Liberties of anyone that disagrees with their FALSE ASSUMPTION OF A RIGHT to a Smoke Free environment on PRIVATE PROPERTY, and least of all the Freedoms, Rights, and Civil Liberties of the property owner.
According to the US Constitution, the Freedoms, Rights and Civil Liberties of Non-smokers are no more or less important than the Freedoms, Rights and Civil Liberties of any other individual regardless of how much Non-smokers may believe, or selfishly wish it to be so. Non-smokers are clearly in the majority, but this does not give license to mandate the personal choices of the minority, nor of the business owners that prefer to cater to that group. Non-smokers Freedoms, Rights and Civil Liberties end precisely where these things begin for everyone else; when those things infringe on the rights and well-being of others. This of course includes people that have made the personal choice to smoke, and more importantly the property owners that would allow that legal activity to occur on Private Property.

Non-smokers are free to decline the open invitation to enter any establishment that doesn't suit their personal preference for a "Smoke Free" environment.

It doesn't get any easier than CHOICE. "

" there is no right to smoke - where is that written in the Constitution ?
there is no right to kill innocent people by smoking and spreading the toxins and radioactive polonium 210 in tobacco
you can drink yourself to death and you do not affect anyone standing nearby
you can get obese and not injure anyone else nearby you
you can commit suicide if you like
but if you commit suicide by burning yourself to death and those nearby you that is murder
the same applies to passive smoking
you can kill yourself with smoking, 'a legal product - what a joke ' which you will do but you do not have a right to kill others with those sidestream smoke poisons and toxins and radioactive agents
it's a shame that the Bush maladministration never ratified the WHO international FCTC treaty that was created to save millions of lives, whilst telling the rest of the world how it should behave and making USA the most hated nation in the world. "