Hi Doug.

>Why couldn't you have skipped?

So a small group of people get to decide what events I can and cannot attend? I think not.

>Right, so let's force the smokers all to quit. <g>

Although it's my profound wish that all smokers would volutarily quit (it'd certainly raise the health of our entire society), I'm not expecting that. I completely agree that smokers should have the right to smoke if they wish. However, if they do so in my presence, they infringe upon my right to breathe clean air. So, all I ask is that they do not smoke in places where non-smokers are. For example, I very much favor smoking rooms (not sections) in airports. They are closed off from the rest of the population so those who want to breathe smoke can and those who don't want to are forced to against their will. That seems like a perfect compromise. Even requiring smokers to do so outside, which means non-smokers have to travel through a corridor of waste on their way in and out of buildings, is better than nothing. Almost all of the smokers I know have no problem with that.

>I'll post for the third time today a link that may help explain my 'take' on the kind of attitude I think can help in a situation like this. It's an article by Peggy Noonan and is IMO well written. Here's the link:
>http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110002699

While I think it's a well-written and thoughtful article (thanks for the link!), I don't think it's applicable in this case. For example, the Boy Scout cited in the article joined an organization that has certain rules and he chose to break those rules. Sorry, but I missed the law, statute, or generally accepted rule of our society that states it's acceptable for one group of citizens to force another group to be exposed to toxic waste products against their will.

BTW, I'm enjoying this discussion. The only thing that would make it more fun would be in person -- say, in a crowded, smoky bar <g>.

Doug