>> Irrelevant. I don't want to breathe your smoke, regardless of
>> risk. You don't have the right to impose so much as discomfort
>> on me.

> There is an obvious reply which I won't use, but it goes something
> like ... you. Who lets you decide what *I* can do? What made you
> superior to me in a public place? If you don't like me, go away. And
> if *you* can decide what *I* can do, then what if I insist that you
> only wear black because colours offend me? Where does it end?

A better counterexample would be body odor. If one person is not allowed to
impose the discomfort of passive smoking on another, it stands to reason
that BO would be treated the same. Potential health risk aside.

Maybe it could be resolved by formalizing a first-come-first-served thingy.

That said, I positively hate passive smoking, amongst other things because
it irritates my airways, and causes my eyes and nose to be runny for days,
but more importantly because it is a symbol of the inconsiderate attitude
of most smokers. If I can avoid disturbing someone at little cost to
myself, I do so. Similarly, if they'd just move downwind of me, or sit down
at a table further away, or wait until I was done eating before lighting a
cig (assuming I was almost done), that'd be considerate. While I don't have
a right to demand that people be considerate, I do feel justified in being
angry with them.

Either way, I'm more opposed to using law as a means of "social
harmonization" then I am opposed to smoking. In a democracy, however,
social harmonization is one of the primary uses of the law, especially in
socialist countries (e.g. USA).

As a side note, after Norway banned smoking in restaurants, bars and so
forth, a number of people are now able to enjoy the night life that weren't
previously able to do so. As a result, the profit has actually climbed,
much to the chagrin of the naysayers ;)

> It amazes me that you can say that, and advocate the freedom to bear
> arms! ROFL! I'd rather take my chances with a psychotic poodle than a
> psycho with an M-16.

Definitely. While there is some truth to the statement about guns not
killing people, rather people killing people, there is also the point that
they do make it easier to kill someone, especially at a distance, thereby
amplifying the destructive potential of an unstable person. Up close, a
knife is still much more dangerous, though.

As for dogs, I don't see why people can't realize that it's much the same
thing, although with much more limited potential for damage. I don't see
why dogs should be penalized for having been unfortunate enough to end up
with bad owners, or for having been provoked. I mean, it's simple enough to
avoid provoking a dog, even one that is inherently agressive: don't make
sudden moves toward it. Even a child can be easily made to understand this.

> ROFL! A trained attack cat! This is going from the sublime to the
> ridiculous, Bob. Are you having a lend of me, or what?

Er. Excuse me?

You are, I hope, aware that Siamese cats were originally bred to be
bodyguards in Siam? They are very possessive and quite protective of their
owners and territories.

I take it you have not been attacked by a cat. I have, and would take an
attack by a dog over an attack by a determined cat any day. They move so
damn fast that you don't have a chance at stopping them, they can climb on
your clothes, and they always go for the eyes and throat when they want to
take you down. Those claws and fangs are *damn* sharp. An attack by a dog
is simple enough to handle, by contrast, and I have tried both.

>> Would you allow mice to run free around your children?

> I'd rather do that than put them on a leash. People would giggle at
> me.

Yeah. Besides, what gives us the right to displace all other life on this
planet to make things more comfortable for ourselves?

> Then substitute any succulent fruit. Alcohol production is a natural
> process in ripening fruit. Mangoes are best when a bit "off." My point
> is that ZERO is an insane level for *anything*. It can't be measured.

You seem to forget the direction in which the detection error goes.
Anything below 0,02% (in Norway, other countries may use other measuring
instruments with different tolerances) turns up as zero. Hence, zero,
rather than setting some arbitrary limit. The error rounds down.

> I don't think so. Law only seems to go one way... more and more
> restriction for better and better reasons.

Er.. I'd beg to differ. Law only seems to go one way... more and more
restriction and vagueness for more and more popular, short-term reasons.

Marius

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5