Clearly you are against the infringement on a person's right to practice a habit that as of yet is still legal.
First, thanks for all your thoughtful questions and I appreciate that you understand that this is the designed area to vent, ( a silly thing to do maybe, but at least momentarily satisfying as well X-D ), about all of our peculiar, sometimes petty, pet peeves, irritations, and frustrations.
Secondly, ( and I'll stop this numerical nonsense now - no "And thirdly..", I promise ), I'm very pleased that there's no confusion about where my angst-fueled opinion stands. IOW, yes, I'm absolutely against the infringement and wildly happy the habit is still a 'legal' one.
Thanks for quoting me so specifically because it's slightly flattering X-D You're actually paying attention to things I've written and I never really plan for that. You've caught me off guard you evil genius.
Yet the proponents of the movement against public smoking would claim that public smoking is an infringement on a non-smoker's
right to a smoke-free environment.
Well, that's true. There are people who really just hate the smell of smoke, but instead of saying that I believe they go about pretending they actually give a damn about other peoples health. Now let me ask you a question: Should someone who KNOWS they don't like smoke of any kind around them be able to dictate who populates a place of business and who doesn't or, I think more reasonably, could they just not find a different bar, cafe, restaurant? If the activist anti-smokers are so interested in smoke free environments, why don't they just open their own cafes and such versus going to, for instance, Mr.Jone's cafe - when it's he who invested his own money in it and he who takes all the financial risks and he who does all the work of running it - to eat his food? Surely there are other people in the world, other places, that offer food too.
My point is that I think it should be left to the business owner what environment they create. If it is not patronized, he goes under. But I don't believe Big Brother should stomp in and tell Mr.Jones a certain population of his customers shall not be allowed to do something that, until recently, was not considered terribly unreasonable and it is still a legal activity. Please don't say it's because people didn't know about the risks of smoking. That's been common knowledge for a long time.
The links you posted earlier, combined with comments about your own exposure to second-hand smoke having not yet led to lung cancer, give the impression that you doubt the strength of the link between ETS and lung cancer. ("The pseudo-science of second hand smoke is so thin it makes me ralph when people attribute logic to it.")
Yes, clearly I made my opinion known and why.
Further more, you state that studies purporting such a connection (such as those by WHO and the EPA) are “skewed with an agenda”. Presumably the agenda of the “granola eating, gotta-change-the-world neo-hippies”. You state that the credibility of such reports depends on the reader’s unwillingness or inability to question their validity, “swallowing the truth” without any “critical thinking”.
Well, you're pretty damned good at telling me what I said. I appreciate that because I don't always remember. However, now that you have I still am not quite sure how I should respond. We both know MY opinion. What's yours?
This is what interests me. Your main objection is the government’s interference in public smoking policy, their meddling having produced regulations that violate a person’s right to smoke – an activity that is still perfectly legal. And yet you also state that the very science behind any need
for such regulation is faulted, faulted by persons who are twisting the results to achieve a means that is not based on a HEALTH problem, but actually on a social problem. (“What's next? Signs that say,'Sorry, we're not allowed to serve the obese or overweight.'")
Therefore, you are actually making two big points here. “Government interference” versus “faulty science purported to be true in order to achieve a goal”. I simply want to know the relationship between them in your mind.
Can you help me out?
Are you suggesting that my 'two big points', ( seriously, I had no idea I was doing that X-D ), are contradictory and if so, couldn't you just say or ask that? I think that's what you're getting at(?) but as I said earlier, I cannot state with absolute certainty that I understand your position or points in totality. Maybe you could help me out
Is government interference ALWAYS bad -- or is it only bad when it is based on distorted facts? (And if there are other factors, please say so)
Why is everything reduced to yes or no, black or white, good or bad, on or off? I don't really think all things are that easily answered. I would think that if facts are distorted and these facts are used to interfere, well...I'm not sure I would call that 'good'.
How much does an “agenda” damage the credibility of a report? For example, if I told you that some research lab was being paid half a million dollars by the EPA to fund a study analyzing the link between ETS and cancer, how would you feel? You do not know for sure if the payment includes any "tweaking" of the report, but you do know that the EPA is a strong advocate of the ETS-cancer connection. Some suspicious internal memos have also been found that may be suggestive of the intent to meddle. How would this influence your opinion of that study or that research lab?
That reads like a little mini-mystery. It's interesting but, again, I feel like I'm sort of being asked to decide on something that you've already set up as being twisted inside the question itself. That's a little like asking,"You see someone beating a dog. Do you think that's bad if you don't know the dogs past behaviors or the owner's side of things?".
If you need any more clarifying, let me know.
I am always in need of a good clarifying X-D
BTW Britannicus, please know that the laughing faces are not laughing AT you. It's me being slightly tongue in cheek, not unpleasant or mean.