[Steely Glint]

"I notice you don't refute any of it."

Why bother? It's red herring to this discussion, and there's no point in arguing irrelevancies with you. You want a relevant valid statement to try and refute? Try this one:

"Cigarette smoking has harmful effects on human health."

Go ahead, try and refute it. You can't.

Or try and refute this one:

"Restaurants and bars in America are already subject to government health regulations."

You can't refute that one either.

[E Rocc]

"Restaurants and bars in America are already subject to government health regulations."

But what you all are talking about is the equivalent of fining the bar if patrons don't wash their hands before touching anything in the place.

-Eric

[Madame Dufarge]

You want a relevant valid statement to try and refute? Try this one:

"Cigarette smoking has harmful effects on human health."

Here's another relevant, valid statement:

In a free society, it's none of your business if people choose to take risks.

Unless you're going to present the socialized medicine argument that "society pays for it."

And reveal yourself even further.

[Just another Joe]

"Cigarette smoking has harmful effects on human health."

Once again, we are not talking about first hand smoke. Try to stay on topic.

"Restaurants and bars in America are already subject to government health regulations."

I don't need to refute that statement. Since it's talking about scientific, proven, with peer reviewed studies health hazards, let's put the same test to ETS.

Now what cha got to say?