From: b.scott@csuohio.edu   
      
   On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:29:34 -0400, "J. Clarke"   
    wrote in   
    in rec.arts.sf.misc:   
      
   > Brian M. Scott wrote:   
      
   >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:32:43 -0400, "J. Clarke"   
   >>  wrote in   
   >>  in rec.arts.sf.misc:   
      
   >>> David Friedman wrote:   
      
   >>>> In article <6lfpvlFc5jg1U2@mid.individual.net>,   
   >>>>  "John F. Eldredge"  wrote:   
      
   >>>>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:40:56 -0400, 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.   
      
   >>>>> True.  As long as a drunk is not operating a motor   
   >>>>> vehicle, the  risk to those nearby is fairly small.  On   
   >>>>> the other hand, most forms of tobacco use give those   
   >>>>> nearby a dose as well, whether they want it or not.   
      
   >>>> And while one can argue about the medical effects of   
   >>>> second hand smoke, the unpleasantness for non-smokers is   
   >>>> unambiguous.   
      
   >>> It's basically an excuse for do-gooders to impose their will on   
   >>> others.   
      
   >> No, it isn't.  I'm sure that in some cases that plays a   
   >> role, but it's basically a public health measure.   
      
   > That's a rationalization, not a reason.   
      
   It's manifestly a reason.  You may consider it an   
   insufficient reason, but denying that it's a reason merely   
   makes you look stupid or ignorant.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)