Luquado

1.) Look, there's zero 100% accurate evidence linking the relatively small amount of secondhand smoke you get in a night out to health problems like the make it sound. ZERO. I'd love to see a link to an actual study that doesn't include the words "estimated" or "projected" or anything like that. All I'm seeing is "estimated (or the other fave 'up to') 30,000 people!" ZOMG SO MANY PEOPLE DYING FROM SECONDHAND SMOKE. WAIT HOW MANY? WE DON'T KNOW loooooolerz.

2.) Also, news flash regarding this stuff: if someone dies of prostate cancer, it's "cancer" and also *may* be counted in those figures if someone in their home smoked. The reason I say this is, once again, there has never, EVER, been a conclusive study regarding the effects of secondhand smoke. Not that bullshit 12 year old one, not the bullshit 6 year old one. It stands to reason that if you're in a COMPLETELY SMOKE SATURATED ENVIRONMENT - like, approaching 100% smoke - 24/7, for months, like those rats, that your chances of cancer will probably increase. Duh. Put someone in that same environment with car fumes and they'll be dead even faster. Duh as well. But cars aren't outlawed? Common sense, people.

3.) I'd love someone to Google this since I'm on dialup and travelling and can't at the moment, but there was some recent study that measured "average air pollution" in one night out VERSUS average air pollutants in morning traffic, then sitting in your office with your windows open, then afternoon traffic. And that was higher than the second hand smoke. It was published quietly and faded off of the radar like all studies that weaken the secondhand smoke argument do, but I recall it. You should be able to hunt it down.

4.) RE: my alcohol and fast food analogies. I apologize as you guys are right. Those don't directly affect other people. Strike those from the discussion.

5.) People with allergies to smoking and asthma etc: Now those people I feel for.

6.) The story about the waitress at the smoke filled restaurant? Yeah, talk to any research scientist about how "correllation does not equal causation." That isn't any sort of valid evidence whatsoever. We know nothing about the rest of her lifestyle, etc. etc. etc...

7.) And FINALLY, the main point that everyone that's FOR this has pretty much glossed over is still uh Stubba's: This, shockingly, isn't really about whether or not smoking is bad for you or for the guy standing in the room with you. This is about government intervention in business where they really didn't need to; in essence, nanny legislation. With the evidence supporting the secondhand smoke = cancer link weak at best, and with the free market clearly demonstrating that a very small minority of people wanted this ban (otherwise most business would have put their own ban in place), I find it completely insane that this legislation exists.

And as far as stuff that affects us? You know what, I don't own a car. I walk where I like to go or use transportation. Your gas guzzlers are pumping CARCINOGENIC CHEMICALS INTO MY AIR. It's YOUR exhaust, not mine. When I'm walking on the sidewalk, I'm breathing YOUR car's exhaust. When my apartment window is open, which is MY private space, I have to close it before rush hour or else the whole place will eventually smell. I DEMAND A BAN ON CARS. Demand, I say! Those chemicals cause cancer!

And that, my friends, is a completely valid argument too.