Quote:
|
It doesn't matter if you don't want to be annoyed by legislation. Right now, most nonsmokers are annoyed by a lack of legislation on this matter. Nonsmokers are the majority and smoking in restaurant and bars isn't a constitutional right. Do the math.
|
Well, I guess I can't really answer that. I just hope that the majority doesn't turn against something you enjoy doing without evidence that it's harming other people.
Quote:
|
Common sense to me can only result in attempting to minimize my exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer and other various adverse conditions, but that's just me and a whole lot of other people.
|
You are exposed to cancer causing chemicals constantly. Not just in the air you breathe from smokers, but in the milk you drink, the food you consume, and the sunlight you see. What you should be worried about is the amount of exposure and the relative risk associated with such exposure. The question should be, does second hand smoke produce cancer causing chemicals in such amounts that it poses a healh risk to bystanders? If that answer is yes, then I completely agree that smoking should be banned. But in the absence of real evidence to substantiate that position, I must disagree.
Quote:
|
Any government must necessarily act as a "babysitter". That is what governments do- look out for the best interests of their citizens. You have benefitted immensely from goverment regulation of private business. If you want to claim otherwise perhaps you'd prefer to live in a third world country with little or no goverment regulation of private business.
|
I don't agree that is what governments must necessarily do. And if you really believe that governments look out for the best interests of citizens, well, you obviously either don't live in the US or are ridiculously naive. I can't speak for other countries, but the US government exists for one reason: to perpetuate itself and make sure the rich white men stay rich and white.
Quote:
|
While you may find it weak, many others do not...including lawmakers.
|
Well, it's not that I find it weak, the WHO report specifically stated it found weak evidence to support the contention that ETS harm others. It actually used the word weak. It's not a question of anybody else finding it weak, it's a question of basing laws on weak evidence.
I will admit that if moderate to strong evidence showing ETS is harmful to others is proven, then smoking should be banned in public places.
Will you admit that if only weak or no evidence showing ETS is harmful to others is found, then smoking should not be banned in public places? If not, why not? I think this is one of the main areas of argument right now, but not because we really disagree about policy, but about the facts. First we should establish the policy, then determine if the facts fit the policy, yes?
Quote:
|
I don't know how the laws are made in your country, but around here, the no smoking in public places was enacted by workers compensation, rather than by legislators.
|
I think it's generally enacted by legislation here. How is it enacted by worker's compensation where you are? What does that mean?