The fact that the blog is about ethics can probably be deduced from the phrase "I run a blog about medical ethics".
In respect of being in favour of smoking - well, I'm no great defender of it, but there might be a liberty argument to be had when the only person harmed is the smoker. If others are put at risk, then the argument shifts slightly: it's no longer about smoking, but about exposing others to your smoke; and it's perfectly coherent to defend the right to smoke to the hilt, and at the same time defend the idea that exposing others to your smoke is morally iffy.

Had the commenters' tone been different - and had it engaged with the argument in any meaningful way - I would not have labelled them shills.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:03, 2 replies)

I'm a smoker
I think it's a filthy habit, I don't do it in the house, and I don't smoke around my kids.

I wish I had never started, and although I personally find it inconvenient, I am totally OK with the ban in public places.

On the other hand, ask me if I agree to being stopped from smoking by myself, in my own car, and you'll get a negative reaction.

Am I a shill? Apparently so.
(username failed moderation, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:30, closed)

Again, unless you were paid to post that opinion
you're not a shill.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:32, closed)

Not on the strength of what you've just said.
But what you've just said is markedly different from a great many of the comments received.

On the face of it, you're making a claim about individual liberty - a claim that may or may not be tenable, and one that certainly could be investigated further. What you're not doing is wailing about how all this is symptomatic of puritanism, moralism, bigotry, and the systematic persecution of smokers. That's why you're not a shill.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:36, closed)

That depends on whether you're driving or not.
I vaguely remember a post about this on Facebook, or some other waste of time website.

The argument is, that smoking while driving is a distraction, particularly if you're clumsy enough to drop your cig, how would you react? Particularly if you drop it as a reaction to an accident where you need to react quickly.

In this case, you're a danger to other road users and not just harming yourself.

One guy replied, "Oh, I wouldn't do that, I'd just calmly pull over", but the point is, it's not just about one person, it's about how the general public would react in such a situation.

EDIT: For reference, I'm not a smoker, but I'm not against it either, as long as you don't force it on other people, bit like religion really!
(anonymousreality tickled your fancy on, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 12:09, closed)

So you should ban talking, eating,
radios, electric windows, air conditioning, sat nav, passengers and manual gearboxes.

All of these require pretty much the same attention as smoking does.
(username failed moderation, Mon 28 Nov 2011, 16:52, closed)

Ooh. Someone likes that so much they're posted it
as a story.

That's me put in my place!
(username failed moderation, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 12:29, closed)