From: zeborah@gmail.com   
      
   Brian M. Scott  wrote:   
      
   > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:50:30 +1300, Zeborah   
   >  wrote in   
   >  in   
   > rec.arts.sf.misc:   
   >   
   > > Brian M. Scott  wrote:   
   >   
   > >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:14:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"   
   > >>  wrote in   
   > >>  in rec.arts.sf.misc:   
   >   
   > >> [...]   
   >   
   > >>> Personally I don't smoke, but I think that the way the US   
   > >>> handles  smoking is just another example of Puritanism   
   > >>> running amok.   
   >   
   > >> Prohibition was arguably Puritanism running amok; this is a   
   > >> different motivation altogether.   
   >   
   > > John would probably disapprove of the situation in New   
   > > Zealand.  Smoking is banned in all restaurants, bars,   
   > > etc.   
   >   
   > Pretty much the same here.  It's also banned indoors at the   
   > university where I teach, and that does include the   
   > individual offices.  Even in the middle of winter there's   
   > generally a small cluster of nicotine addicts just outside   
   > the building entrances.  Fortunately, I quit years before   
   > the change.   
      
   And the cluster outside means that anyone trying to go in or out of a   
   building has to hold their breath, and the smoke wafts in when the door   
   opens anyway.  This led to my university banning smoking within 6 metres   
   of... hm, can't remember whether it was of any entrance, any door or   
   window, or any building at all.   
      
   Now they're considering making the entire campus entirely smokefree (I   
   think with a few reserves set aside in obscure locations).  I'm a   
   tremendous fan of smokefree (and wish it applied to bus shelters in   
   rainy weather, for example) but I don't see the benefits outweighing the   
   costs in this case.   
      
   > > It means I can actually go to the pub now.(1)   
   >   
   > Ours used to have non-smoking sections, but they helped only   
   > a bit.   
      
   A non-smoking section is practically useless unless it's in a separate   
   room, preferably with an airlock between and a separate ventilation   
   system.  Air *moves*.  And the staff don't get to keep to the   
   non-smoking section anyway.  (Occupational health and safety was one of   
   the major drivers, IIRC.)   
      
   >Quite possibly not enough for you: as I recall, you   
   > have an asthma problem, right?   
      
   Yes.  Second-hand smoke doesn't seem to be a direct trigger, at least in   
   the absence of other factors, but I see absolutely no reason to subject   
   my lungs to more trauma than is strictly necessary; the stuff (trauma in   
   general and, obviously, smoke in particular) is cumulative.   
      
   > > I don't know that the net effect is strictly in favour of   
   > > Puritanism. :-)   
   >   
   > > Zeborah   
   > > (1) I don't go often, but I don't go out *anywhere* often.   
   > >  I've certainly gone more often since the ban was enacted   
   > > than I had before it.   
   >   
   > You probably go out more often than I do these days.  I get   
   > out for the fiing about once a month during the academic   
   > year, but that's about it, unless you count the bookshop.   
      
   I go to church Sunday mornings, dinner with parents Sunday evenings, and   
   meeting with my "study buddy" (we used to both study; now she studies   
   and I write and we share a potluck dinner) Tuesday evenings; all very   
   domestic, so unless one counts any of those as "out" you still go out   
   more often than I. :-)   
      
   Zeborah   
   --   
   Gravity is no joke.   
   http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/   
   rasfc FAQ:  http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)