>ten packs a day, I don't care as long as they don't blow it in my face.
Then Doug Orr Says:
>>I usually agree with almost every thing Maggie writes, but I have to disagree
with at least part of this. While I agree we should not legislate vices, we do
have the right and obligation to regulate externalities, i.e., damages imposed
by other people's actions. Bans on smoking in public places are the only way
to protect non-smokers from the side smoke of smokers. There are millions
of people who have very severe reactions to "passive smoke." Several studies,
(denied by the tobacco companies of course) have shown an increased
incidence of lung cancer of non-smokers who grew up in families where the
parents smoked, and an increased risk of lung cancer among waiters and
I guess my comments were not clear enough -- I wanted to say that I don't think we should legislate vices AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INFRINGE ON MY RIGHTS. By saying a kind of wimpy -- I don't mind if you smoke as long as you don't blow it in my face-- I meant as long as you don't smoke around me. By that I include any building I happen to be in (restaurant, work, theater, etc.). So, I do agree with Doug -- smoking around me is unacceptable, but if someone wants to smoke in their own space (i.e. home, single office, etc.). Or if a restaurant wants to allow smokers, then I don't eat there.... All that said, and agreeing that smoke, first or second hand, is bad, I still have that old lefty idea that air pollution from factories, fuel burning vehicles, coal furnaces in schools, fumes from agent orange used to clear road and rail beds, etc. is far worse for me on a macro level than second hand smoke. maggie coleman mscoleman at aol.com i.e. asthma amongst the young and adult in nyc is at epidemic levels, and the bronx is the worst in the city. well, it just so happens that the bronx is completely surrounded by highways with constant traffic and all those highway side beds are kept free of overgrowth by the use of agent orange.