Tracy,

Well, I think we've arrived at the hair-splitting point. <g>

However... <g> For me it's about a more fundamental issue. It has to do with where and how we draw the line between personal freedom and the rights of others. I just think that it's more than a little hypocritical to try and do to tobacco what failed with alcohol in the early part of the last century. If we really do believe in individual rights, and the corresponding personal responsibilituies that go along with those freedoms, then let's apply those principals evenly across the board. That, to me, is far more important than where to draw the line. It's the whole presumption that society takes that makes it think, corporately, that it has these rights (to restrict to this degree and at these levels) to begin with.

Drinkers, statistically, threaten the lives of far more people than smokers do. Let's outlaw booze again since we're so concerned. And, gun ownership has been proven to reduce crime whenever conceal & carry laws are enacted. Are you in favor of mandarory gun ownership and training then? <g>

One of the safest places to live is in solitary confinement but you have to give up a lot of personal freedoms to live there. The question, again, in my mind, isn't about where we draw the line but how we draw it. If we draw those lines for the proper reasons and reasoning I am content to let the free market find the right balance.

Who's rights do we trample in the name of safety and as an excuse to use safety to avoid holding people personally responsible for their choices and actions?

IOW, I think we're often being led around by our noses by emotion, which, while not intrinsically 'bad' can certainly give false readings, rather than clear thinking. Ever been 'spooked' at night by a sound? Emotionally there may have been someone in your home but it was nothing more than, perhaps, the furnace. In cases like that your emotions LIE to you. They do not tell you the truth.

Thanks, though, for your thoughts.


>In all honesty, I see nothing wrong with preventing smoking from occurring anywhere EXCEPT in designated smoking locations--and those designated smoking locations should NOT be in the unavoidable path of non-smokers. If a business cannot feasibly create a smoking section or outside location, than in my opinion, that is a business decision and acceptable. Once again, smoking is not a necessity, but an addition and as a smoker, I would like nothing better than to stop. I don't know any smokers that WANT to smoke, although some may enjoy it. I believe in the right to smoke AS LONG AS I DO NOT THREATEN THE HEALTH OF ANYONE ELSE, but let's face it: knowing that smoking is an addiction and a health hazard-who in their right mind would WANT to smoke? It's crazy. Do not make it easier for me. The fact that I will search out smoking locations when in public only proves that I am addicted and willing to put forth the effort to find a location to smoke. If it is 37 degrees outside and
>pouring down rain, I will simply get an umbrella. That does not mean I want to smoke, but that I am having serious problems stopping. The day you make it easier is the day more people will start smoking again.
>
>>Tracy,
>>
>><bg>
>>
>>Indeed. I think if a restaurant (or hotel for example) wants to take the risk in today's hyper-sensitive society they should be allowed to so do.
>>
>>Personally I'd ask that a seminar be in a smoke-free environment but I am not in favor of forcing the establishment (in this case) to obey smoe (IMO) overly-intrusive set of laws. Let the free market decide...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Pretty soon we will have a 'right to pee' group lobbying... :o)
>>>
>>>>Tamar,
>>>>
>>>>>>We found eating establishments in Portland and Pendleton that allowed smoking in specified areas. However, they used the same the same air conditioning system and you could smell the smoke.
>>>>>
>>>>>My favorite line on this subject is: A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a swimming pool.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar
>>>>
>>>>*chuckle*
>>>>
>>>>Funny, but at the same time there are those who wish to restrict folks from peeing at all. <g> I'd think there's a 'tolerant' balance somewhere, don't you? <s>