Sorry, mrsface, but I get a little tired of this kind of generalization:
“anti-smoking sanctimoniousness”
Please read some pro-smoking opinions to see sanctimony. 
Really, those at both extremes seem to be a little short in the “understanding” department.
I do, though, agree with the gist of your reply.
Dogface: The simple matter is this: Antismokers are fascists. They hate democracy. They hate liberty. They hate civil rights.
Actually, I think most of them just hate cigarette smoke.
I have always wondered: why doesn’t anybody ever advocate (much less actually come up with) the invention of some sort of “smoker’s veil” that would let people smoke cigarettes without letting the smoke get outside of a, say, two-foot radius of the smoker? Some kinda particle screen in front of the smoker’s mouth and nose combined with some kinda particle-trapping device that fits on the lit end of the cigarette—c’mon, folks, surely a society that can put a man on the moon should be able to come up with something like that?
If there were really some effective means of eliminating smokers’ emissions, or even most of the emissions, I’d say heck, let 'em smoke anywhere. It’s not the mere fact of their smoking, or their “democracy”, or their “liberty”, or their “civil rights” that are bothering me at all—it’s just having to breathe their smoke that bothers me.
i grew up with smokers. it was terrible in the winter, no open windows, no fresh air. breathing was not pleasant in the house, even more so in the car. they just did not understand why it bothered me so much. they atleast homured me and rolled down the window in the car atleast. then my mom started dating this guy who refused to roll down the window in the car when he smoked. it was like a gas chamber in there. lucky for me she broke up with him.
anyway there are alot of smokers who just don’t understand how much their smoke sucks for other people. i think there should be a law that it is illegal to smoke near someone who does not want you smoke near them. nothing too extreme maybe a 30 dollar fine or something.
Quoted for truth (despite cliched Nazi reference.)
These guys are part of the “we know what’s best for you” cabal. To them, lying about statistics to achieve a supposedly desirable end is no problem.
Out of politeness, I don’t smoke at the table with babies when at a restaurant (rarely a problem, as I spend very little time around parents with babies.) I do this only because it quite simply isn’t worth the trouble to convince most people that second-hand smoke is a myth, the myth has been so successfully ingrained into the public’s mind.
However, if I someday have a child, I have no intention of going outside every time I want a smoke. According to one of the health fascists’ TV commercials I saw last year, that makes me worse than Satan, who the commercial depicted as disapproving of the smoker. So be it. But I don’t govern my life by pseudoscience and lies foisted upon the public by the people who think the world would be so much better if everyone did exactly what they say.
I don’t understand the insatiable need for smokers to call people who don’t want to be exposed to smoke facists and liars. I fully believe the studies on second hand smoke and cancer/emphesema/etc.
But for those who don’t, how about this: Smoking smells gross. It makes your clothes smell disgusting. It makes your hair stink. It turns your skin yellow. It makes you look old before your time. It gives you a persistant cough and grating voice. It’s messy. It’s a fire hazard. It destroys your sense of smell. It’s highly unpleasant when you are trying to eat.
I used to think these things didn’t bother me, until my city went smoke free. It’s great - air is clean and clear. Smells are sharper. You can go to a restaraunt and smell the food and see the television. You can go to a bar and wear the same clothes the next day. I’m not cleaning out gross ashtrays at work. It’s excellent.
I know you may disagree, but the fact is that some people dislike smoke but are still very reasonable people. Now you may not like it if I eat fatty food or wear neon yellow. But the difference is that those things don’t really affect you in tangible ways. If I were running around naked or setting of fireworks in the street, you would call the cops, because that does affect you. Still, I could do those things at home, just like smoking. But would they be a good idea if I had kids? Probably not.
I guess the point is, some things are legal in public but not good ideas, some things are legal at home, but not good ideas under certain circumstances. Smoking falls into both categories.
Well let’s just skip by the whole second-hand smoke “myth” if you so wish. Let us instead focus on the “your smoke makes my eyes sting and my clothes and hair stink” issue. Is this a myth too, or reason enough not to inflict your smoke on other people, whether children or not?
However, to return to the OP. Much as it would seem like a good idea to ban smoking at home with your children present, not only would this be unworkable, it would open up a whole can of worms.
Could we not also say that exposing children to bad language is undesirable? Or racist opinions? Or a poor work ethic? Or how about just plain ignorance? We have no option but to accept that many parents expose their children to plenty of things that others may regard as unhealthy and undesirable.
Life must suck being the offspring of selfish smokers. But unless we are prepared to legislate parenthood and make the state entirely responsible for raising children there’s not much we can do for that child.
I did withdraw my call for a ban on smoking in the home in my post of 06-13-2003 @ 06:48 PM, above. But when I see adults smoking around kids, and the obvious discomfort this causes the kids, I become very frustrated.
If I ask RexDart, or someone who feels as he/she does, why they think it’s OK to smoke around kids I’m not likely to get a reasonable, well thought-out answer. If I ask why not step outside, All I get is refusal.
Maybe some grandparent will bring an action in court for abuse against people who smoke around others who have no hope of escape.
Sentence them to comunity service in a children’s ward for kids with emphesema, etc.
My answer is: there’s no good evidence that I should refrain from doing so. I think it’s unreasonable to overindulge in the Precautionary Principle by refraining from every activity that some talking head social activist somewhere in the world says “might” be harmful without presenting solid scientific evidence.
And while I think it’s OK to smoke around kids, I still respect the fact that the kid’s parents might disagree, and don’t force the issue. That’s part of being their friend. It’s a concession I make in some places because it’s not worth the battle. But if they came to my residence, I would not refrain there, and if they didn’t like it they could leave, I would understand.
If I pay tens of thousands of dollars to own a home, why should I have to go outside? During winter, going outside is a major inconvenience. I go outside to smoke when I’m at friends’ places who don’t smoke, that’s their property and they set the rules. At my place, if I want to smoke a cigarette at my computer desk while browsing the SDMB, I get to do that. If I want to watch a long movie without having to interrupt it halfway through to step outside, I get to do that. Why should I be inconvenienced in my own home?
Not your friends and their kids. These children (who can’t leave);
(From RexDart’s post, above).
“However, if I someday have a child, I have no intention of going outside every time I want a smoke.”
Have you looked at any of the scientific proof? And do you have any proof that it’s not solid? Snidely dismissive tobacco industry propaganda doesn’t count.
mg: Have you looked at any of the scientific proof? And do you have any proof that it’s not solid?
Yeah, what’s with calling it “pseudoscience”? I’m certainly willing to believe that the most alarmist of the claims about health consequences of secondhand smoke are exaggerated—we’re not all going to drop dead of cancer just because we spend an evening with a smoker, for example—but many of the more moderate claims look reasonably well supported. A survey of the current literature in the Journal of the American Medical Association cites a lot of peer-reviewed stuff from JAMA, the British Medical Journal, the American Journal of Medicine, and other reputable sources that are hardly “pseudoscience”.
If RexDart’s going to call negative health effects of secondhand smoke a “myth” and “lies” that have been “foisted on the public”, I think the onus is now on him to explain why he’s right and all these researchers are wrong. And yeah, I too would prefer to see published peer-reviewed research supporting his position, not just press releases from the tobacco companies.
Kimstu, your link requires registration, so if you want to support any of these alleged consequences of second hand smoke, you’ll need to find something else.
And it’s not my responsibility to find a reason that the studies aren’t solid, it’s their responsibility to show that they are. Since the original second-hand smoke study used flawed methodology (see Cecil’s column http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html), I think they need to explain why any of their studies should be trusted at all.
So show me a reason to find them credible, after Cecil says they aren’t. Show me a reason that isn’t (to paraphrase mangeorge)snidely conclusory anti-smoking propaganda.