Sometimes it's hard to understand how intrusive and oftentimes nutty laws ever get on the books. Often, the answer is a little at a time. One step here, another step there, and then it's right down that slippery slope to the loony bin. The latest example involves anti-smoking laws. Initial restrictions to, say, stop second-hand smoke from bothering people in elevators and public places were understandable. 

Soon, however, they were imposed on private businesses and even bars and restaurants. Certainly, the market could handle the issue on its own, by allowing people to choose to eat and drink at places that either allowed, banned or in some way restricted smoking to specific places, as individuals preferred.

That's how it should be done if one is concerned about freedom. Instead, we're entering a strange world, where the fanatics are expanding the laws to strange new places. Last week, the Montgomery County, Md., council in suburban Washington, D.C., voted to put limits on smoking even within one's own home or apartment. 

The law would set "stiff fines for people who smoke in their homes if it offends their neighbors," reported The Washington Post. "Under the county's new indoor air quality standards, tobacco smoke would be treated in the same manner as other potentially harmful pollutants, such as asbestos, radon, molds or pesticides. If the smoke wafts into a neighbor's home - whether through a door, a vent or an open window - that neighbor could complain to the county's Department of Environmental Protection."

Closer to home, Garden Grove city Councilman Mark Rosen wants to "prohibit smking in movie lines, fast-food playgrounds, parks and other areas where children might be present," according to the Register. The councilman said he was prompted by seeing people smoking while in line for the Harry Potter movie.

Don't be surprised when that is expanded to homes with children. If officials can limit smoking within one's home in Maryland, then they can do it here. That's the way these laws go. Never mind how inappropriate they are for a supposedly free society. 

Gen. Wayne Downing, the national director for combating terrorism, is the "mentor - and biggest cheerleader" of the Iraqi National Congress, an opposition group in Iraq much like the Northern Alliance is in Afghanistan, reported the Washington Post. "Downing has supported an insurrection in Iraq for several years, arguing that Hussein's regime could be toppled only if America had the guts to arm and support the Iraqi National Congress." 

But this is not wise. "We haven't finished the job yet in Afghanistan," Chuck Pena, senior defense policy analyst at the Cato Institute, told us. "It would be unwise to open a second front. There is no evidence linking Iraq to the Sept. 11 attack." 

As in 1991, an attack in Iraq would involve months of preparation and a large ground invasion force. Even Israel's "intelligence agencies have not detected any link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks," reported the London Telegraph. " 'Our assessment is that bin Laden works without cooperating with governments,' said one Israeli official."

Because Israel was attacked by Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, it would have every reason to suspect him. Americans once again should be thankful that Colin Powell is helming the State Department. 

A New York Times Magazine profile last Sunday described a recent meeting of Bush strategists in which "Powell pointed out that there was no evidence connecting Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks. 

"Others said that that was irrelevant, that the administration came to power promising to do more to bring about an end to Saddam Hussein.

"Powell said the coalition would not hold if the United States targeted Iraq and without the coalition there could be no shutting off of terrorist finances, no intelligence sharing, no international arrests." 

President Bush should heed his trusted secretary of state and focus on those who committed the Sept. 11 attack, not other problems. .