America - crackpot alley!

As you have probably realised over the months I generally stick to British trials & tribulations concerning all matters prohibition but the two tales highlighted today show you just how far the lunacy has gone. If ever there were cases for the men in white coats then 'these are the babies'!
John Birke (should really have been spelled with a 'u' - and you'll see why) has been expelled from the apartment complex in Woodland Hills a suburb of L.A. California. Set in the San Fernando valley this is obviously a much sort after place to reside so it is even more amazing that Mr Birke has lost the his plot!
Drug user? Nope. Non stop noisome party time neighbour? Nope. Drunk & abusive neighbour? Nope. Keep noisy dogs? Nope.

 

 (The tribe of Burke's)

In fact, Mr Birke and family seem your perfectly normal everyday American citizens - except for one thing. They abhor smoking/smokers! Now none of them will admit to such, but they clearly are of that mindset. It may clarify the picture a little if I inform you that Mr Birke is a lawyer (attorney) so you would think that he knows the law, yet he took it upon himself to march around the communal pool spraying other residents, who were smoking, with water! he also decided that photographing teenagers smoking was a quite normal practice (?). He says that he was only trying to get a 'smoke free area' for his wife and daughter who both suffer from asthma (who doesn't these days it seems?) [five feet away from those smoking would have done!]

A Van Nuys Superior Court jury agreed on Tuesday that John Birke, who has lived with his wife and daughter at the Oakwood Apartments for nearly 20 years, caused a nuisance when he wet smokers with water two years ago using a spray bottle.  

Now here at last we have found a court that accepts that people may wish to smoke, as is their right, and have 'found' accordingly. The man is a complete anti smoking idiot and no doubt did plenty of name dropping in court as he was part of the 1990s mob , S.A.F.E, or Smokefree Air For Everyone, one of the groups that convinced the Los Angeles City Council to vote to ban smoking inside restaurants-and just look where we are at now! Taking this knowledge, how can we possibly believe this legally trained imbecile when he states

"I am not against smokers but says there is much evidence that secondhand smoke is a health threat and a public nuisance."

 I wouldn't hire him as my legal counsel for he obviously 'cannot lie straight in bed' - or is that now a 'must have' ability in this woefully corrupted legal system we have bred?
To me, there are three major points here:
a)... I assume that this cretin could produce solid, factual evidence that SHS, in an outdoor environment, had suddenly become a danger...
b)... That as he considered himself part of the 'righteous brotherhood' he could run around like a headless chicken, meting out his crackpot forms of retribution to those who dared to pollute 'his' air...
c)... Why wasn't this idiot charged with assault and a lawsuit filed for damages? (after all, it is America!)
The best is yet to come for Mr Buirke has now filed  several lawsuits against Oakwood, one on behalf of his daughter, and one for his wife, saying their rights were violated because secondhand smoke is a public nuisance that violates their rights. Both cases are pending.I wonder just how much money this 'burke' will waste on proving something that isn't provable has occurred? Perhaps he ought to talk to Dr Michael Siegel before he starts the court procedures, it may well save him a fortune!
The second case of lunacy comes from Minnesota where anti smoking regulations are rife, so rife in fact that  they don't even want to employ smokers and are slowly getting rid of any that do! The medical receptionist at Park Nicollet Health Services has been sacked because she smokes. Not at work, not during her tea/dinner breaks, not even on the hospital grounds - but because she smokes at home, or anywhere other than the hospital! Now this is blatant discrimination of some magnitude and needs to head straight for Court No1!

Stephanie Cannon smokes 20 menthol cigarettes per day, it is her choice, it is her right to do so if she so chooses, but apparently the hospital think differently. Yet six weeks after she started she says her supervisor told her,

"We don't want you smelling like smoke when you come here."

Stephanie says she did everything she could to get rid of the possible smell of smoke 

"I stopped smoking on my breaks, I wouldn't smoke in my car, I bought new clothes," she claims. "At home, I keep my work clothes in a sealed plastic bag and then spray them with air freshener after I put them on, before work. I was told to 'avoid' my husband in the morning because he also smokes and was also encouraged to shower at the hospital--before work--instead of at home."

Stephanie was also bombarded with 'quit smoking' literature even though she had no intention of quitting something she enjoyed! This is probably what irked the hospital authorities as Stephanie was, in effect, sticking two fingers up at their demands to quit.
If the hospital pursue this line of logic what are they going to do about a female receptionist who dowses herself in strong perfume, or a receptionist who eats very strong curries on a daily basis, or is addicted to TCP (yes, I do actually know someone who is!), or a receptionist that has a bowel/stomach disorder and continuously 'parts with the wind'? What about about someone who has cats or dogs and carries the spores into reception with them causing someone's allergy to kick off-where does this end? Let's say "Melanie" burps rather loudly and pollutes the air for the work colleagues in the immediate vicinity causing "Jilly" to vomit on the spot, splattering all around her-who sues who and for how much? Who loses their job for displaying bad breath, for causing vomiting & mayhem in the foyer? Where does this end?
As Stephanie Cannon searches for a new job, she says she's talking to an attorney. "What I do in my home or outside of work when I'm not punching into that little clock is what my business," she says. "I shouldn't have to be made like I'm a leper."

Stephanie, sweetheart, welcome to the modern age where discrimination is outlawed except in any cases to do with smoking/smokers. Over this side of the world, the EU has clearly defined discrimination but completely ignore their own laws when dealing with anything smoking related!
And don't forget you have to overcome the utter bilge that this fool, Dr Jonathon Winickof will spout (in the hospitals defence) about contamination from so called 3rd/H/S. His 'study' was conducted merely by approximately 1.300 phone calls, simply asking highly loaded questions to people quite unaware of what he was getting at.

  

(Winickof-the junk science maestro!)

This is 'junk science' at its very worst yet 3rd/H/S almost seems to have been accepted-especially by the exceedingly gullible media! You see Stephanie, it suits the cause so it doesn't have to be of any scientific value whatsoever! What won't suit 'the cause' is the fact that a BBQ, a highly popular commodity, DOES have a damage factor. Ask any court why one is discriminated against and the other (with a profound scientific background, isn't?)
Whatever the outcomes of these two weird & wonderful smokerphobic cases it is blatantly clear that while state after state in America, goes bankrupt anything smoking related will be prioritised - it's just like walking down crackpot alley!