DrTchock

Put a cork in it, fatty.

Now you see, a smoking room would be dandy. A compromise would be dandy. However, the anti-smoking gestapo aren't happy with that. No, they're not. Because they hate smoking and just love imposing their will upon others. Zieg heil.

I trust ASH about as far as I could throw their collective Nazi arses.

"Experts". Hohoho. If you asked any of these "experts" to name ONE person who died of "passive smoking", you'd be in for a surprise.

Why "ridiculous"?

This is from the benevolent anti-smoking, puritanical, health-gods, Health Canada: "This segment will be the most difficult to persuade. They are die-hard smokers who are less likely to believe smoking will affect their health or to believe in the health benefits of quitting. They enjoy smoking and do not really want to give it up. They are also less likely to think they would be successful if they tried to quit. Hence, they are not very open to accessing information on quitting smoking. The price of cigarettes seems to be the only way to motivate this group to consider quitting." So, the neo-puritanical, quasi-fascist anti-smoking movement taking place in the world appears to be about some sort of social engineering project, attempting to force adults to modify their behavior and alter personal lifestyle choices. Of course, anti-smoking fascists try to justify their activities by claiming they are protecting non-smokers from second-hand smoke. There are simpler and more logical ways of doing so that are guaranteed to please 100% of the population. The technology is readily available to provide a comfortable environment for all. What kinds of "arguments" do those pushing for the outlawing of "public" smoking advance? These people complain because they cannot "enjoy" a meal if someone is smoking near them in a restaurant. They object to the "inconvenience" of having to specifically seek out eateries that do not allow smoking. Beyond that is the horrible problem of clothing that smells of cigarette smoke. The waiters and cooks who work in restaurants that permit smoking claim they should not have to inhale second-hand smoke while performing their duties. What do these claims boil down to? Apparently, these zealots believe there is: * A right to eat or drink in any particular restaurant or bar. * A right to a job in any particular business establishment. * A right not to smell something a person does not like. * A right to personal convenience. A right to impose one's personal preferences on other people. What these notions actually reveal, of course, is the degenerate understanding that holds sway among too many people of what the concept "public" means, the abysmal ignorance rampant among us of the true meaning of property rights, and, of course, an astounding arrogance regarding the nature of rights of any kind. Imagine the breathtaking implications of fully implementing these "principles." Travelling to school inconvenient? Make your teacher come to you. Commuting proving irritating? Force your employer to set up a branch in your back garden. Crying children on public transport getting you down? Kick them off the bus. If you had a right not to smell certain odors, you could prevent others from wearing perfume and cologne. You could force someone to bathe if he sweated too much and had terrible body odour; you could stop your neighbour from planting flowers whose aroma overpowered your delicate nasal passages. You see where this is going? What about the evils of second-hand smoke? No credible evidence exists for any long-term negative effects of casual contact with second-hand smoke. Yes, the smell can be unpleasant or worse. But as noted above, such proposals border on the ridiculous. Yes, a small number of people have allergic reactions to such smoke. Yes, if you live day-in and day-out with a smoker, you might be more prone to develop infections. But passive smoke never killed anyone. After all, active smoking requires decades and decades to "kill" the smoker and sometimes not even then. None of these problems justifies the draconian measures advocated by the anti-smoking gestapo. A handful of dubious surveys and studies proves nothing whatsoever. Here's a lesson for you in the scientific method. Watch carefully, children: # 1. Observe some aspect of the universe. # 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. # 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. # 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. # 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. There is no DIRECT observation of passive smoking resulting in death. If you ask me, you're all a bunch of hypochondriacs. Oh no! Here comes the bird flu...! There is no logical stopping point once we abandon our respect for private property rights. However, those who know "better" have already begun arranging such measures. Forcing a private property owner to cease the usage of the property in the manner he decides is the essence of fascism. Of course, none of these dramatics have been about ill-health, or smoking for that matter. No more than the plentiful crusades the do-gooders have and will continue to inflict upon the rest of us. This is a battle between coercive power and personal rights between self-righteous zeolots and responsible citizens, between insidiously imposed control and explicitly acknowledged freedom. And for the record, I don't smoke. Some links that some of you may find interesting: http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

Do you write your own material?