"Julianne" > wrote in message news:<e2jTb.6757$gl2.3218@lakeread05>...
>
> There are three very solid positions on this issue. One is that if smoke
> makes you miserable, avoid it. Surely, someone who can play trumpet can
> also find other work of equal pay.

But isn't that just as absurd as saying that computer programmers who
don't like getting hit by chainsaws (in my previous example) should
change their profession, rather than making chainsaw swinging illegal?
I'm assuming this is not the stance you're taking of the two.

> second hand smoke is a hazard. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence but
> with the exception of small children and airline personnel who work on long
> distance flights, there is no solid research. Thankfully, infants are not
> often brought to jazz bars.

Yea but what about the airline personnel study? Did the study show
that they have negative health effects? You kind of quietly dodged
that there..

> Smoking in public places is avoidable. So is entertainment and relaxation.
> There is no law that says I am entitled to a place where I can relax without
> being bothered by the ways of others.

Well no, but like I said, there is a law that you can't swing
chainsaws around for your entertainment and relaxation. In other
words, you're allowed to enjoy entertainment and relaxation, but not
at the expense of other people's health. You can't shoot skeet in
your backyard, because you might shoot someone, but you can do it
elsewhere where your enjoyment won't hurt me. How is that any
different from smoking?

(And by the way, there actually IS a "law that says I am entitled to a
place where I can relax without being bothered by the ways of others"-
that place is your own home, and there are books full of laws about
not being bothered by others while you're in your own home. I know
that's not our main argument here but your statement was flawed and I
had to point it out.)

> nausea and sensitivity to light was very real. So, should I move to ban
> perfumes? Is it my responsibility to handle my insensitivity or should I
> demand that others tend to my needs?

This is a good one (and btw perfume gives me headaches too!) I guess
in this case, I plead "the majority", which I'm normally sheepish
about doing. Another similar example to yours would be the "boy in
the bubble"- someone with a terribly weak immune system, vulnerable to
even the slightest bit of uncleanliness. I guess the difference
between vulnerability to perfume and smoking is that second hand smoke
(if proven to be dangerous) is likely to be dangerous to just about
everyone, (kind of like swinging a chainsaw around).

So as a rule, I don't think anyone should be allowed to do ANYTHING
that directly endangers "most" types of people in the given area, even
if only moderately. Or at least allowing it should be a special case-
like a free speech rally or something, labelled as such in the laws
(like an amendment), and I can't imagine that you think smoking
tobacco qualifies for that kind of "essential liberty" status. So-
"Don't ride your bike on the sidewalk, Don't store explosives on your
front porch, Don't drive with your headlights off, Don't start a
bonfire in the middle of a thick forest, and why not 'don't smoke or
throw acid in a crowded room'". Seems to me that this is the
foundation of law in general, right?

I guess it depends on the study...