>>> 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?

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

 Not at all unreasonable.

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

 Only work to the point where the smokers spread out so much
 there is no alternative. Better is a division of areas.

 Toledo passed a strict seperation of smokers and non-smokers.
 There has been a lot of complaining about that, centered on
 the idea of, if you don't like smoke, go somewhere else.

 Before non-smoking areas were required by law, I only remember
 three major areas where you could find non-smoking areas.
 Trains, Buses, and Airplanes. I do not recall one single
 restaurant with a non-smoking area. IOW, if you didn't want to
 breathe some smokers stench, you could not go out to any
 restaurant, or much of any place else, except maybe church.

...

 MB> almost done), that'd be considerate. While I don't have a
 MB> right to demand that people be considerate, I do feel

 Why not?
...


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

... A man's reach should exceed his grasp or what's divorce court for?
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5