[-YYZ-]

I hate to admit it, but those of us here who smoke have also been complacent. We've just been saying "it's the owner's choice to allow smoking or not, and if they do and you don't like it, you're free to not come in." This is correct and proper, but the realities of politics suggests that we might have gotten further with the non-smoking public by arguing science and proposing real alternatives to smoking bans.

What we really need are standards for indoor air quality that include tobacco smoke, and then places could be tested and either pass or fail, and it'd be up to them to improve the quality if they failed. Yes, I know, this shouldn't be necessary in a putatively free country where private property owners should be free to do as they please with their property, but the reality is we can only do what the majority will accept, and most of them don't smoke and don't care overly much about our rights.

[Gabz]

I don't disagree with you.

Not that long ago I sat down and figured out how long ago it was that I got involved in this and was totally shocked to realize it has been closer to 20 than 15 years.

[metesky]

What we really need are standards for indoor air quality that include tobacco smoke, and then places could be tested and either pass or fail, and it'd be up to them to improve the quality if they failed.

From what I understand, all the chemicals in exhaled tobacco smoke have had acceptable levels set for them by the EPA and tobacco smoke is far below these levels. This is the reason the EPA refuses to set an acceptable level for tobacco smoke and the reason why so many SHS studies have been supressed.