[Old Professer]

It is safe to say that you could not work as a groundskeeper in spring in Nashville, but that doesn't mean that the government can present false evidence to bolster its shaky basis for usurpation of private freedom; in your workplace a reasonable accomodation could easily been made had you requested one through a Congressionally-mandated Act - the ADA; did you ever approach your employer along these lines prior to the smoking ban being put in place at your workplace?

[r9etb]

did you ever approach your employer along these lines prior to the smoking ban being put in place at your workplace?

Nope -- didn't have to, as it turned out. And people were better off for it.

At any rate, that's not at all my point. Milloy's article appears to go beyond this one flawed study, to imply that there is no harm from second-hand smoke.

My anecdotal example suggests that it is at least possible that smoke-free buildings are "healthier" than ones where smoking is permitted. I suggested a study that would provide evidence one way or the other -- for all I know, it's even been done by one insurance company or other.

Perhaps Milloy has covered it elsewhere, but I find it rather telling that did not see fit to even consider the question of whether second-hand smoke causes health issues.