|
So to summarize, here are the main positions that people in this thread have put forward to bolster their claim that banning secondhand smoke in enclosed public spaces is wrong.
(1) Secondhand smoke is not harmful.
(2) Banning secondhand smoke requires bigger, more expensive government.
(3) Banning secondhand smoke reduces "freedom"
(4) Banning secondhand smoke is "ineffective"
(5) Banning secondhand smoke is inconsistent with how we as a society treat alcohol.
Every single one of these positions has been completely and convincingly refuted.
Correct? Does anybody opposed to the ban still hold any of the above positions and is still willing to discuss the issue?
|