quittin' smoking

Christopher tm xopher.tm at gmail.com
Tue Mar 14 12:47:44 EST 2006


On 3/14/06, Jeremy David <epistemology at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. Bars. I think I've heard of those once.
>
> My point is that at a bar, you can drink all you want and it doesn't
> hurt the guy next to you. But if you smoke all you want, it *does*
> hurt the guy next to you.

No unbiased study has been performed that I've ever seen. Studies
funded by Phillip Morris show that Second-hand smoke is not the least
bit dangerous (of course), while studies funded by certain other
"politically-minded"groups, the EPA for example,  have found
second-hand cigarette smoke to be more dangerous than Dioxin and
various other sundry PCBs. The EPA was, by the way, looking to approve
the dumping of Dioxin waste into the ocean, not the banning tobacco
usage in public places. The WHO studies found no connection between
second-hand smoke and cancer.

As to asthma and other respiratory ailments, automobiles and pollen do
far more damage; you should be looking to get rid of them first.

> Smoking is like boxing. Boxing is dangerous, but some people just love
> doing it, so they should be allowed to, and they *are* allowed to, but
> only in certain places. Why can't smoking be the same way?

Smoking is like not bathing. Your nose may not like it, but for some
reason the government hasn't mandated weekly showers.

> There are some people who don't mind breathing in any noxious
> substance that might be in the air. If that's your idea of a good
> time, then you're entitled! However, there are also some people whose
> idea of a good time is not having to worry about breathing in any
> noxious substance that is in the air,

Those people are called germophobes and they stay home where they belong.

> We need both kinds of places. Not one designated kind of Good Time
> Place where if you want to have one kind of a good time, you also have
> to deal with other kinds of things that you consider to constitute a
> *bad* time.

There are thousands of non-smoking establishments.

> The Invisible Hand of unfettered capitalism seems unable
> to solve this problem.

That's when the Highly Visible Oppressive Hand of Fascism steps in. If
non-smokers stopped patronizing smoking establishments rather than
legislating them out of existence, the results might be more
acceptable to everyone.

> Why can't cities hand out a certain amount of licences to
> establishments making some of them places where you can smoke, and
> some of them places where you can't?

Well, for one, I don't want to have to go to the city to ask for a
Smoking License, a Drinker's Permit, Sex Ration Stamps, Carnivore
Coupons, and a forearm barcode tattoo that identifies me as approved
to walk the streets during daylight hours without my electrical
restraining collar - but only when travelling to and from work.

Okay, the collar would be kinda cool, but you get the idea.

Proprietors are currently and have always been free to open a bar that
is non-smoking. Why do so few of them choose to do so without
governmental coercement?
--
Christopher tm

Nunc est bibendum; nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus.


More information about the pgh-goth-list mailing list