From: jclarke.usenet@cox.net   
      
   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.   
      
   --   
   --   
   --John   
   to email, dial "usenet" and validate   
   (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)