[laredo44]

I have said quite clearly here that smoking should be legal. The only bone of contention is between myself and the folks that call it junk science that smoking is bad for you.

Most of what I see called "junk science" is the nonsense surrounding second-hand smoke. Are you saying you don't believe the anti-smoking crowd is manipulating public opinion with assertions so they can regulate behavior they disapprove of? Second-hand smoke has not been proven to be a cause of cancer. Simple as that. That anti-liberty forces propagandize the issue is simply their modus operandi.

And you call me dense.

Actually, I didn't call you anything, I asked a question. You seemed to be siding with those here who oppose liberty. My mistake.

[cinFLA]

Actually, I didn't call you anything, I asked a question. You seemed to be siding with those here who oppose liberty. My mistake.

Freedom lovers love to breathe smoke-free air. For decades smokers violated my right to smoke-free air.

[laredo44]

Actually, I didn't call you anything, I asked a question.

Oh boy... I didn't even read my own post. You get one free elbow to my ribs... :)

[sakic]

I imagine that at some point it will become clear that second hand smoke is bad for people whether you choose to believe the present "junk science" proof or not.

In any case, this all started with some posters here claiming that smoking isn't bad for you. I haven't read all of the thread but I'm curious if you've told them that they're wrong.