Apparently this is too long to post as a comment, so....

[postmodernsmile]

Everyone needs to hear this anyway. It's really more important than most people make it out to be... at least, or especially, in principle. Here we go... An essay concerning the new "clean" air act:

It isn't really a case of allowing people to do things. People don't need to be allowed to do what they want - that's pretty much the definition of

Comments

[_susurrous]

hmmm. i agree with most, but not all, of your points. for instance, many non-smoking sections are only pitiful attempts to separate smokers from nonsmokers. smoke, because of its gaseous nature, tends to spread over glass barriers and the typical half-walls that separate most restaurants' smoking and non-smoking sections.

regardless of bias in scientific tests, inhaling smoke is not good for your lungs. in fact, inhaling any kind of alien substance [i.e. dust, smoke, etc.] damages the sensitive tissues lining your lungs. this is damaging regardless of whether you inhale the substance from your own lit cigarette, from another's, from burning leaves, or from yardwork.

also, patrons of restaurants should not necessarily be forced to make their dining decisions based solely on whether a place is smoking or non-smoking.

late reply - been busy working

[postmodernsmile]

the pitiful attempts are problems with bad restaurants, which the customers can feel free to take into account - go capitalism! And again, i have yet to really notice a hint of smoke in any nonsmoking section at a restaurant - and i've been to some smokey restaurants.

inhaling substances usually is bad on the lungs; but taking pollution into account, the negligible amount of cigarette smoke that infiltrates the nonsmoking section is pretty much... well... negligible.

i agree fully with your last point. what i was saying is if anyone really hates smoke so much that the tiny amount of smoke (if it exists to the conscious mind at all) they can stay at home or find a restaurant that offers a better nonsmoking section or perhaps a smoke-free facility that the owner or manager decided would be an economically sound idea. Now, however, people who do want to smoke with their meals (which i do believe i can correctly say must far outnumber the prior group of extreme smoke-haters... aka picky and/or obsessive-compulsive assholes - heh) are

[_susurrous]

a more formal response

[postmodernsmile]

Jordan

[postmodernsmile]

Moving on... your attack on libertarianism is far more undefended than a libertarian state. Libertarianism is not anarchy. We libertarians just have a bit more faith in human beings being able to figure out what makes them money and what's a good idea to eat, wear, etc. than nanny-staters do today. If there really were a lot of complaints about smoking, power to the restaurant owners for making a good decision in "cleaning" the air up. The government just ends up spending a lot of money manging reaaaaally HUGE bureaucratic organizations (monopolies) that run charities, schools, businesses/utilities, and more. Making these public makes them have to appeal to America so they can make money. All the government has to do is increase taxes and get re-elected - which is easy to do with two-party pop politics. I could argue all day about the economic and social benefits or libertarianism, but this isn't relevant and isn't the best place; i'll just address what you did: a libertarian state isn't stupid, so they will have a military. This

[_susurrous]

don't really feel like replying to this -- it's too nice outside and it isn't worth my time. we disagree and we aren't really paying attention to what each other is saying. it's kind of a moot point anyway; it's pretty much out of our hands. and besides, it's not an issue that really bothers me either way, anyway.