I'm not sure why I didn't get this before. Too many people posting long comments, I expect, mixed with my already hectic day.

Seeing as how every citizen in the country has this choice, I don’t see where there’s enough reason to eliminate an owners right to decide whether or not smoking should take place on their property.

I suspect for most people, we've beaten this dead horse until it's left an Arizona sized crater :->, but I'll try one last time to at least communicate my viewpoint.

If you read what I said carefully, you will note that I never said that consenting adults should not under current law be forbidden from accessing tobacco. My point was really that it isn't an automatic right in the sense that your original post seemed to suggest it was. In my previous post, I tried to summarize that, maybe to the point of sounding harsh.

Secondly, the issue with respect to restaurants is the question of "voluntary". I have no problems with adults (under current law) exposing themselves to second-hand smoke. My only issue there is that I don't want to subsidized their stupid habits.

My only issue here is with the welfare of children. I don't agree that parents should have the right to put their children repeatedly in harmful environments, and the simplest solution is banning children from smoking areas. Some states take the alternative somewhat draconian position of banning any smoking in restaurants. I happen to think that a bit extreme.

If we accept the proposition that second hand smoke is as dangerous as directly inhaled smoke, and if we agree that the state has the right to prohibit minors from smoking, then why in the world do anyone think it is ok for them to be seated in a smoking section? This just makes no sense.

Seeing as how every citizen in the country has this choice, I don't see where there's enough reason to eliminate an owners right to decide whether or not smoking shold take place on their property.

First, you've got a point. I did not word my statement correctly. It is the parents responsibility to care for their child. The government, however, must step in when there are eggregious errors on the part of the parents. Physical or sexual abuse being the most obvious forms of this.

The reasons why I do not feel the government should step in with regard to parents who smoke around their children are many:

1. There are a lot of parents who do it. Enforcing it would be nearly impossible.

2. It sets a precedent where-by children could potentially be taken away from their parents for other reasons. Like feeding kids too much candy. I don't think this is a road we want to go down.

3. As bas as smoking is for children, there are far worse things being done to children than exposure to second hand smoke. I would much rather authorities concentrate on those instances.

The bottom line is that there is only so much the government can do to protect children from bad parenting. We can criminalize the worst of these offenses (abuse, neglect, etc.) but at the end of the day we have to realize that some people are just sub-par parents and there's nothing else we can really do about that. If we try all we're going to do is end up doing trampling personal liberties and creating more inefficient bureaucracy.

Its just not a place I want government going.

Yes, this is what I meant.

For some reason I seem to be having troubles expressing myself in an efficient manner. I can't seem to say what I mean.

Sigh…tuesdays…

I think I have actually already said what I thought should be done (for now): Namely prevent children from sitting in smoking sections in restaurants. Since the danger to children from second hand smoke is a long term risk in most cases, only a fool would advocate such a draconian move as removing the children from their parents. I also think that more needs to be done to protect non-smokers from the financial consequences of another choosing to smoke.

My advocacy is for an iterative approach. Let's fix the problems we can fix easily, then work on what needs to be done for the harder ones. In the end, you can't save everybody from other people's stupidity and ignorance, so you have to pick your battle's pretty carefully.

To summarize my viewpoint, I certainly don't argue that we should assume that privacy rights protect individual actions which harm other people, either physically (second hand smoke) or financially (via increased premiums for example). I also don't accept that there is a moral equivalency between an act made with conscious choice from one made involuntarily through mental illness. Finally, I reject the notion that we should do nothing if we can't fix it all in one fell swoop.

Maybe I'm misreading what Rob was saying, but "sole duty" seems to me to mean that the well-being of the children is the only (or primary) duty of the parents, not that well-being of the children is only the duty of the parents. The rest of the quote there seems to indicate that he doesn't think that taking a child into a smoking restaurant necessarily constitutes poor enough parenting to involve the government. Maybe I'm misreading, though. I'm sure he'll speak up if I am.

Whether that's what he's expressing or not, I believe that, while it's irresponsible for parents to expose their children to cigarette smoke, such exposure isn't problematic enough to justify removing children from their parents.

Are you advocating for that, Carrick?

It's easy to lose track of everything each of us has said (in this rather verbose exchange, mostly due to my ability to perambulate ad infinitum), but I pretty much said something almost exactly like this earlier: From my perspective, we have two real choices here. Either ban smoking from restaurants, or don’t permit minors to be seated in sections where smoking is permitted. I don't regard this as being particulary draconian.

Robin then says: In defense of Rob’s point, protecting children is the duty of parents.

I was objecting to the use of "sole" in "sole duty" in Rob's original wording, which is rather overarching. The government has a role and hence a duty in procurring proper treatment for children and others not fully able to tend to their own welfare.

Lest you think I am playing semantic games, here are Rob's words in context: Protecting children from things that may harm them is the sole duty of the parents. Unfortunately, not all parents are good at that. That still doesn’t give the government license to step in. At least not in this instance.

The word "sole" has the specific intent of excluding the government in this case. Why does Rob want the government excluded? I'm not sure, since Rob admits that instances exist where the government has "license to step in."

Since the science overwhelmingly supports the contention that second hand smoke represents a serious health risk for children, perhaps Rob could elaborate on why he feels that we should allow a behavior tantamount to neglect of the child in this instance.