No Smoking… In Your Own Car

Guest Post by Eric Peters

Soon, they’ll be coming for your cigarettes.Bland image

In your car.

See Sandra Bland.

Or, the study released by the CDC that characterizes “second-hand smoke” as the latest threat to “safety” and (of course) “the children.” It urges what you’d expect: That it be made illegal to smoke in your own car, at least, if “the children” are present.

Possibly even if they’re not.

See Sandra Bland.

Or Daniel McIsaac.

Both were ordered by armed government workers – law enforcers – to put out their cigarettes while sitting in their own cars during a traffic stop. Maybe for “officer safety” (second hand smoke being a “threat”) but probably just to clarify who’s boss.

In the above notorious instances, what the armed government workers did wasn’t legal.

Not that it mattered.

But soon, it may matter even less.

Whenever you hear a government organ eruct about “safety” and mention “the children” in the same eructation, you ought to (by now) know what’s coming.Hero stop

“There is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke,” the CDC study states.

Really? No risk-free level of exposure?

None at all?

The merest whiff?

Is the CDC going to claim that – just off the top of my head –  a 17-year-old (legally, a “child”) who buys a used car that was smoked in previously is exposing himself to a measurable danger thereby? If he accepts a ride in an adult’s car – the adult having smoked a cigarette a few hours previously – have the kid’s chances of becoming emphysematic or developing lung cancer increased intolerably or even measurably?

Yes, exactly.

And then some.

General Zod was sent to the Phantom Zone for actual crimes. We are being criminalized for phantom crimes. Hypothesized (and ever-attenuated) “risk” – but no actual harm caused.  As in the VW Situation, where an entire line of cars was criminalized for … what was it, exactly? Emitting “up to 40 times” more NOx emissions. This sounds very ominous but when you look into it amounts to a fraction of a percent uptick per car and well within the exhaust emissions standards for cars made circa 2000. Which as far as can be ascertained haven’t killed anyone via their exhaust byproducts.

Or even given them a rash.

 Stalin’s secret police chief Lavrenty Beria said, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”beria

This isn’t a defense of smoking.

It’s a plea for the restoration of sanity.

Notice the quasi-religious aspect, too.

You can almost hear the high-pitched sermonizing of these latter-day Elmer Gantrys:

“The car is the only source of exposure for some of these children,” says the CDC’s Brian King. “So if you can reduce the exposure, it’s definitely advantageous for health.”

As with the jihad against alcohol – which metastasized from reasonable concern over cavalier attitudes toward drinking and driving into the hysterical (literally) characterization of any drinking before driving as “drunk” driving – smoking cigarettes anywhere, anytime, is becoming the object of a puritanical jihad.

It is very interesting to note here the parallels between what’s going in America and what went on 70-something years ago in Germany – where health Nazis were just as over-the-top as the regular Nazis.

Der Fuhrer didn’t like smokers, either.

As in the Reichskanzlei, It is no longer enough that smokers refrain from smoking in public areas. If there is any chance whatever that a non-smoker might catch a whiff, then it becomes a matter of public concern. Smokers are already frequently prohibited from smoking even in their own apartments or condos because someone might be exposed to “second-hand smoke.”smoking cartoon

It is likely you will be forbidden to smoke in your own vehicle for the same reasons. Doesn’t matter that you have the windows rolled up – and don’t have kids. What about the poor attendant at the parking garage who might be exposed to the dangerous remnants of your anti-social choice to smoke?

Or the child who might buy your ex-car three years from now?

There is no way to objectively tell whether a car was smoked in last week – or last year. Or five minutes ago. Hence, it is likely that any evidence of smoking – ever – will presently become the next excuse to harass and collect. For armed government workers to pull people over, man “checkpoints” and hand out tickets. 

If I’d written this rant twenty years ago, everyone reading it today would call me crazy. But today, it’s America that’s gone crazy.

Criminalizing adults for “exposing” a kid to a distant whiff of this morning’s Lucky Strike … or last year’s Lucy Strike.

The erosion of our personal space continues. Wait until Obamacare really kicks in. It will not end until we have no personal space left – because in the minds of the authoritarian collectivists (the Clovers) who control this country, there is no such thing as “personal” space.

As they see it, anything you do that might affect someone else – a hypothetical someone else – is ample justification to control/restrict/forbid/punish what you do.

Mandatory calisthenics in front of the TeleScreen can’t be too far down the road… .

It’s important to recognize that the jihad against smoking is not really about the “risk” of “second-hand” smoke. Just as the jihad against having even trace amounts of alcohol in one’s blood is not really about “drunk” driving.

It’s about the imposition of a Cloverific puritanism that seeks absolute control, using as the pretext for this the elimination of all risk, no matter how remote – and no matter the cost to our liberty. As Kyle Reese explained to Sarah Connor in the first Terminator movie, “…they can’t be reasoned with or bargained with and absolutely will not stop, ever.”

Unless, of course, we finally stand up and tell them we have had enough.


Subscribe
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
Authority calling. Can I have your freedom please?
Authority calling. Can I have your freedom please?
August 26, 2016 7:29 am

While I’m opposed to this type of ‘authority abuse’, I’m opposed to faulty logic even more.

Start with the second-hand ’cause’ reasoning. When one hears cause, one hears that a prior action directly influences the occurrence of another state or action. Easily understood, not easily proven. For something to ’cause’ something else, it must be a) impossible for the second state or action to occur without the presence of the action deemed the cause and b) singular and c) immediate and unconditional.

Striking a match to a matchbook cover cannot be said to ’cause’ fire, as demonstrated by the many times that fire does not result.

Pulling the trigger on a gun pointed to the head of another is not the ’cause’ of the other’s death, because you have to have a bullet in the chamber, the firing mechanisms must function and the person had to be alive in the first place. I ’caused’ an ant’s death just now: Other than the pressure of my thumb on its body, there was no other factor in its death.

There is no singular ’cause’ to cancer. Human anatomy and disease are complex functions, despite our human tendency to over-inflate our importance in any chain of events. Some people develop cancer without ever being exposed to cigarettes, but they may have been exposed to other ‘cancer-promoting’ conditions or factors, (or sometimes, not even that.)

The first point is the most elusive: What occurs in nature without at least one factor being present that is ALWAYS present? If a factor ‘needs’ to be present, then in some sense it is a ’cause’, but this reduces our notion of ’cause’ to pure randomness, and that simply won’t do!

Likelihood is the proper definition of the link of cancer to cigarette smoke, but that’s not sexy in print on a tobacco-product’s labeling.

What is offensive is the higher-than-though pompousness of being treated like a four-year-old by a non-smoker. Cigarette-smoking is a dumb activity? Tell me something I don’t already know.

Why not tell me something that is not condescending and possibly rooted in proper logic, like “Cigarette smoking is lacking in clear benefits to the consumer.” It’s not pompous or fun, but it’s linked to statistical and evidential reality.

We are exposed throughout our whole lives to nautious substances, some that may increase the likelihood of an ugly and violent disease and some that are less likely linked to that condition. To singularly identify one substance among others as THE cause is naive and exposes a person’s personal bias.

Try inhaling car exhaust or cigarette smoke for equal amounts of time, then tell me which will kill you. Or better, have someone else tell me.

This argument does not see the reduction in car exhaust’s harmful products as harmful in itself, ever. The more that can be done to reduce any linked factor, (especially when it produces no harm to anyone to do so,) ought to be encouraged.

Now onto slippery-slope reasoning, because it’s closely related.

With all respect to the author, this anti-smoking phenomenon will not result in a rise of Stalinism nor is it a Jihad. Sexy words, but ill-founded. Hitler is not at the root of this movement, nor is it some form of illuminati conspiracy to take-over the people of the world. We won’t likely be in an Orwellian world of televised, obligatory calisthenics anytime soon, and all this is said in the spirit of what was said above.

‘Cause’ is partially proven by the presence of a deliberate action, however. If someone shows purpose in placing a factor which contributes to the likelihood of an intended result, one can be said to be a ’cause’ in the outcome.

By denying proper reasoning and providing no alternative explanation, the anti-tobacco crusaders are ‘causing’ people to act blindly and stupidly.

The actions of the governments that support these policies are ‘causing’ people to be divisive, and contributing the the name-calling that so often exists in society; or at least they are acting in a way that increases the likelihood of such a state occurring.

Anonymous
Anonymous

“Striking a match to a matchbook cover cannot be said to ’cause’ fire, as demonstrated by the many times that fire does not result.”

So, in your thinking, something must be 100% to be true?

Someone may be playing around with a match and strike it lightly just for the temptation of it with no intention of actually igniting it so that would mean that it cannot be said that the match and its cover are in any way responsible for causing the ones that do light to light?

Magic involved somewhere I suppose.

In reality probabilities are what are to be considered in the real world, as in you have vastly more probability to suffer respiratory illness and early death in, say, Beijing than you do in almost any part of the United States due the the high air pollution there and the low air pollution here.

Think it through.

Zombie logic
Zombie logic
  Anonymous
August 26, 2016 11:05 am

That was his point – probability does not equate to cause, but Legislators need to prove cause, not contribution when finding fault.

BREATHING IN BEIJING
BREATHING IN BEIJING
  Anonymous
August 26, 2016 11:16 am

“you have vastly more probability to suffer respiratory illness and early death in, say, Beijing than you do in almost any part of the United States due the the high air pollution there and the low air pollution here”.

It’s not “due to” the high air pollution in any scientific relation. The cause may well be the water or any other differentiating factor.

While it can be said that the presence of water to the deprivation of oxygen to the brain “causes” a condition known as drowning, it can’t be said that living in Beijing ’causes’ respiratory disease or conditions or even complications.

So yes, the statistical inference is not there – it is not “cause” unless it meets certain criteria.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  BREATHING IN BEIJING
August 26, 2016 11:51 am

Actually all respiratory illness in high pollution areas throughout was eliminated by fuel additives in 1973, everything since then is just faked false flag stuff to keep people scared so the EPA and can remain in business.

TC
TC
August 26, 2016 8:32 am

A classmate left this in my yearbook 30-plus years ago:
roses are red
violets are blue
don’t blow smoke on me
and I won’t spit on you

Sums it up pretty well. 🙂

M.I.A.
M.I.A.
August 26, 2016 10:52 am

George Carlin Riffs on Police Brutality in Previously Unreleased Material (Audio)

The new material titled “Rats & Squealers,” first posted by Vulture, is astonishingly relevant, given that it was recorded 15 years ago. Carlin riffs on police brutality and corruption, a blistering indictment of crooked cops.

https://soundcloud.com/siriusxmcomedy/george-carlin-rats-squealers-previously-unreleased-material

Sound track won’t post

OutLookingIn
OutLookingIn
August 26, 2016 11:19 am

Welcome to the United Soviet States of America

Enjoy your freedom

You are free to obey – or else.

You had best wake up. Before reality slaps you in the face, throws you under the nearest bus, then kicks you down the cellar stairs. Time is quickly running out. Almost gone. You are not free.

Grog
Grog
August 26, 2016 12:56 pm

Denis Leary: Smoking takes ten years off your life. Well it’s the ten worst years, isn’t it folks? It’s the ones at the end! It’s the wheelchair, kidney dialysis, adult diaper fucking years. You can have those years! We don’t want ’em, alright?

General
General
August 26, 2016 1:09 pm

It’s obvious to me that Americans are not free. How can anyone even think that when the USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world? Excellent propaganda and mass brainwashing.

Stucky
Stucky
August 26, 2016 1:41 pm

Every now and then EP writes a dumb-ass, over-the-top, mountains our of molehills article. This is one of them.

Absolute fact … about 10-12 years ago I was pulled over for speeding. I smoked at the time. Cop comes to window and asks for my paperwork …. and then asks me put out my cigarette. I did. You know why I put it out? CUZ IT’S NO BIG FUCKING DEAL!! (He ran my plates, and then let me off with a warning.) The whole “ordeal” of going smokeless lasted all of 10 minutes. I drove off, lit up another Newport, and guess what? No body pulled me over for smoking in my car! Ever. Again. Can you imagine that??

EP … puhleeeze, you can do better than this.

Grog
Grog
August 26, 2016 1:50 pm

@Stucky
Please call the home office.
The paint is drying on the cupboards.

Iconoclast421
Iconoclast421
August 26, 2016 3:25 pm

In 2016, anyone who still smokes is pretty much dumb enough to qualify for a darwin award. Vapes are so much better in every way.

peaknic
peaknic
August 26, 2016 5:05 pm

It’s been illegal to smoke in a car with a child present for at least 8 years in NY downstate (Rockland and Westchester counties, at least).