Hi Doug,


>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.

Ahh.. Isn't this the exact definition of socialism? Why do you then surrender to your country's medical system then? <g>

IOW, fight for your rights in one area and not another?

>
>>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, too, would have no troubles if all smokers would stop. Same for those who drink alcohol.

It simply is not going to happen - with either.

I quite agree that there are workable alternatives. The kinds I believe are wrongheaded are those that prohibit smoking outdoors or even in your own home or automobile. Or restaurants that wish to choose to be smoking establishments. At some time the non-smokers need to also compromise I'd think.

>
>>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.

Not the issue. If you know a place is a smoking establishment you are not forced to go there. If enough folks do not attend they smoking rules will change - as a direct result of the financial loss.

>
>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>.

LOL Indeed. Of course, as both you and I do not smoke we will be able to avoid the noxious smells a little easier. <g>