Incidentally, your reduction of the argument to a question of parenting is such a red herring — and a lazy way to make an argument — that I stopped reading there.

That’s an extremely poor analogy. If that link could actually be demonstrated, are you suggesting that the moral course of action would be for you to continue making your neighbor sick, when such a small sacrifice as giving up peanut brittle would benefit him? Is that something you’d actually be proud of, a moral trait you want your kids to pick up?

If this is all about the oppressiveness of the state, here’s some news: We have laws on the books right now that restrict your rights in far more significant ways than any smoking ban. Want to make changes on your home? You’ll need a permit and inspections, to protect your neighbors from any foolish choices on your part that could, say, burn his house down. Want to experiment with toxic substances? Chances are you’ll be strongly discouraged from playing with plutonium in your bathtub. And don’t get me started about the government’s insistence on having accessible fire exists in my sweatshop, which really should be none of their business.

Yes we live in a very PC age, and I object to the intrusions of the thought police. On the other hand, I find it equally noxious to hear the breastbeating of the ‘me firsters’ regarding their smoking ‘rights’. If you’re in my building, and I share your air, water, and some of your space, you’re going to share my health concerns. These include my right not to catch fire, cancer, bedbugs, or emphezema due to your carelessness or bad habits. Likewise, my right to sleep supercedes your right of free speech at the top of your lungs, and my right to sanitary conditions trumps your right to observe what happens to your uncollected garbage over a period of 6 months.

If you want to indulge in collecting nuclear waste, experimenting with nerve gas, installing non-standard electrical wiring or blowing demonstrably harmful substances into the surrounding air, the solution is simple: Take responsibility for your actions and move to an isolated area. There are still plenty of them, thank God.

Either that, or now that they’re too old to get high and protest The Man, they’re sublimating their energies.

Having said that, I am appalled that a court would tell someone they can’t exercise a legal right within their own lawfully owned property AND that a court would uphold a HOA passing such a rule without a grandfather clause.

Imagine if someone with a very sensitive peanut allergy made a similar complaint. “Every time my neighbors eat peanut butter or make peanut brittle I get sick.”

I actually am on the side of the non-smoker’s right to breathe, rather than the smoker’s right to pollute his lungs and those of the fellow nearby. However, I note the effect of mob rule over reason. At one time, smokers were the majority of adults (at least, bar and restaurant-going adults), so the law allowed them the right to force smoke on whoever they choose. Now, with far fewer smokers, lawmakers have ’seen the light’. The decision is right, the real reasons behind it are wrong.

I just had to link up with Kate’s post on the recent court ruling on HOA’s. Yes, if your HOA says you cannot smoke in your own house, for which you paid money for, you cannot do it. I’ve had my experiences with and HOA that has been well documented …