Quote:
Furthermore, the thickheaded insistance that longterm secondhand exposure to a known carcinogen is harmless sounds to me suspicously analgous to every tobacco exec who still staunchly denies that tobacco even causes cancer.
|
I, at least, don't want to deny that second-hand smoke could conceivably cause health problems. But there are so many things that could be done besides just banning it. You could require all bars and restaurants to have a certain amount of ventilation. I have a few friends who can't stand cigarette smoke. But there's one bar in town that they'll go to. Not because it's non-smoking -- it's not. But they've limited where you can smoke, and have provided great ventilation, so that the smoke isn't a problem, even for very sensitive people.
Quote:
How does not being able to smoke indoors affect smokers, other than being a mild annoyance?
|
It's not just the weather stuff, though it gets cold enough here in South Bend that it'd be a bit annoying if anyone ever did ban smoking in bars. But it's being at a table talking with my friends, and then having to leave that table to have a cigarette (it's an addiction, folks. You wouldn't want to be around me if I've gone more than a couple hours without a smoke.) It's not being able to have a cigarette with my coffee. It's getting off a plane after a 10 hour flight and still having to wait an hour before I have a cigarette. It's a hundred and one little things like this. And I'm not saying I should be able to smoke whereever I like. I'm just saying there should be more options available to me than "Behind the dumpster".
Quote:
As for letting businesses decide, the free market doesn't care about your health, it cares about money.
|
Indeed it does. And if there were hordes of people who hated smoky bars, but liked bars, wouldn't someone have opened a smoke-free bar by now, to cater to those people? Not because it's healthier, but because they could make money?