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

 KS> Having once been in a choir where I had to sit next to
 KS> someone who appeared to make a habit of bathing in strong
 KS> scent, a case could well be made for this...

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

 KS> And unfortunately, I've yet to see an attempt to substitute
 KS> law for what ought to be covered by common courtesy that
 KS> worked worth a dang.

 I've yet to see common courtesy work worth a damn against an
 addiction.

 Before non-smoking areas were required by law I did not know of
 one single restaurant I could go to and be sure to avoid
 smokers.

 I recall the smoking advertisers used to run ads opposing
 smoking restrictions. They had one where they advocated common
 courtesy. The Smoker asked, "Do you mind if I smoke?" The
 non-smoker replied," Not at all." Never once did the non-smoker
 say, "I would prefer it if you didn't."

 Probably because the smoker would reply, "Well *$%^ you &${at})#.
 I'll $)*!&{at} well smoke if I $)*!&{at} well want to."


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain. -Lily Tomlin
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5