Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site bu-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!bu-cs!root
From: root@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: [longish] Re: ATTIS's force reduction: A Modest Proposal
Message-ID: <672@bu-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 15:33:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.672
Posted: Tue Sep 24 15:33:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 05:36:17 EDT
References: <802@homxb.UUCP>, <146@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 40

I know I am opening a can of worms here but...

Most of these arguments rely on the assumption that second-hand smoke is
a serious health hazard (note, all these notes make a point of that
beyond any [certainly justified claim] that it is obnoxious.) As I
understand it, this remains pure speculation (not in the sense the
tobacco industry claims the link between smoking and disease is
unproved, that's probably total self-serving rubbish.) It's just that
the massive dilution of second-hand smoke compared to actual smoking and
the need to actually smoke over a period of, what? 10-20 years to show
the serious health effects leads one to believe that this might be one
of those grossly exageratted fears, you probably won't get enough smoke
in your lungs.  I think an actual review of the studies are short on
showing any real relationship as popular rumour would have it, even
though people would like to believe it to strengthen their arguments
against smokers.

The fact that you consider it obnoxious should be sufficient without
venturing into the dramatic. If it makes your eyes tear or otherwise
annoys/distracts you, all the more reason (who can argue that that is
*not* a health effect!) If you find an office-mate obnoxious/distracting
(for whatever reason) you have a right to complain also, I don't see
what the argument is about.

The only thing that does bother me is the desire of people to ask the
government to enact laws to enforce simple etiquette, I think that's a
dangerous precedent, I assume this is why anti-smokers feel a need to
escalate the issue. On the other hand, I believe enacting company rules
about etiquette probably is appropriate, so no argument here.  Besides,
smoker's probably don't deserve to have their 'rights' vigorously
protected, they'll live (but precedents that might spill over into other
areas should be carefully considered.)

	-Barry Shein, Boston University
	A smoker, groan.

	+----------------+
	|This is my space|
	|  please smoke  |
	+----------------+


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com