This story in the L.A. Times (use username/password cpunks/cpunks) chronicles the growing popularity of hookahs, of all things, in hip L.A. bars and such.

Now, you can’t actually smoke these things (or anything else) in the bar or restaurant in California, because that would be just too unhealthy. Too many people are allergic to smoke, they say. Or are they?

On a recent Friday night in Pasadena, Rachel Lesky, 25, smoked a hookah for the first time at an outside table—smoking being prohibited nearly everywhere indoors—at Equator coffeehouse. Though she is allergic to cigarette smoke, the fumes from the mixed fruit tobacco didn’t bother her. “It’s really mellow and very calming,” Lesky said.

So she’s allergic, mind you, to cigarette smoke, but she’s not allergic to trendy smoke. Trendy smoke is “mellow” and “calming”.

Now, it’s certainly within Ms. Lesky’s rights — or anyone else’s — to dislike cigarette smoke, and they can dislike that smoke while liking other, trendier smoke. But I find it very hard to believe that she (or anyone else) is allergic to secondhand cigarette smoke, and at the same time finds fancy smoke “calming”.

It’s impossible to just dislike anything these days; you have to maintain that you have some catastrophic biological aversion to it. By claiming some biological basis for your preferences, you avoid having to compromise on or defend your opinions. Very clever.

I expect hookahs to be banned outright before long in California; the possibility of holes being poked in the smoke-allergy argument is too dangerous.