The "relentless" attack on smoking is nothing but a focus on something good to hate. Just imagine what these so called smoking Nazis would do if their focus were somewhere else. Maybe if they were to use as much effort to stop littering or pollution we might have a cleaner place to live in. Instead they attack the smoker. They push the smoker aside, outdoors or to the confines of a smoking room. Soon in some cities even smoking in the confines of a person's car will be illegal. I have heard of people being pushed out of their home because someone moved in upstairs and complained and sued that the smoke inside was polluting the upstairs condo. Which in the case of the "johnyb" article is and should be argued. The pool area that he speaks of is a public area and should be governed by the majority. If someone objects to smoking, courtesy dictates that the smoker should refrain from smoking. If the smoker does not refrain then the objecting non-smoker should complain. I think that a courtesy or compromise law should exist to allow smoking until someone objects and lets it be known that they wish their environment be smoke free while they are present. Anyone that does not comply should then be punished by ejecting them from the common place. In the immortal words of Rodney King "Can't we all just get along?". Compromise is really the issue. In the issue of rights, I think smokers do not have the right to pollute another persons environment. I can remember a drunk urinating on or around my front door. Not only was that vulgar, he was polluting my space. I can see how a non smoker can feel the same way. If in a common closed area a person passes gas it may make the environment less attractive. Most people have the common courtesy to go to a bathroom to release the gas. The smoker should have the same courtesy. The common rights of Americans to express themselves is indeed at risk here. Does anyone remember the Boston tea party? It was tobacco that was thrown into the bay as well. Smokers are literally taxed to death. If tobacco is deemed a drug does that mean the tax will then stop or can all other drugs be taxedin tha same way? In the spirit of the Boston tea party, how about if we tax caffeine? Coffee, tea, sodas, energy drinks, etc. would be taxed. That would generate many tax revenues. If tobacco were enhanced to be less addictive by controlling, reducing or eliminating tar and nicotine, would that not be beneficial to the public? Second hand smokers would greatly be in less danger. Smokers would be less addicted and could probably quit more easily. Again reducing the tax revenues. In the area of rights, smokers are feeling a discrimination much like other people are feeling that are protected by law. The feeling of being singled out and discriminating against is what most smokers feel. The witch hunt in companies to give nicotine tests randomly is proof of this. The hatred of smokers is again a focus on something common to hate. The hatred is directed much like a homophobe or a racist. Most people agree that smoking is bad so it is a common hate. Something that is OK to hate. If smoking were not an issue, where would they focus their hate? All this hatred has caused the smokers feelings to be hurt. The smoker then feels a shame in the public eye. The smoker feels less accepted by society. The smoker feels singled out and discriminated against. The smoker feels less comfortable around friend and family. The smoker feels left out. The smoker feels embarrassed. The smoker feels less confident. The smoker feels anguish when forced to smoke in places that are in areas that are not convenient or exposed to the weather. If another group of people were singled out like this, we as a society would make laws to stop some of this. The argument that smoking is an addiction or habit or choice can be argued that so is marital status, or sexual preference. Those that are protected feel some sense of belonging. Smokers do not. I believe that compromise is extremely necessary by all. Common courtesy is a must on both sides of the issue. Smokers must own up to their abuses and be less intrusive. Non smokers must be tolerant when the smoker is trying to stay clear of you. Smokers should ask the other people present if they mind if they smoke. It should not be the non smokers sole responsibility to say they object. The term smoking Nazi may be referenced to Adolf Hitler being a non smoker and hated smoking. He was also a vegitarian. I guess you could also consider the term Vegi Nazis when you consider the "relentless" attacks from PITA against eating meat. What ever the feelings are on either side, we are still a nation of justice and of compasion. We have learned to be tollerant of some abuses such as marajana. Going from the extreme felony prison terms to a simple infraction ticket. The tobbacco pendulum is swinging toward the extreme. We as a whole should find the common ground and work from there.