I guess that what I was trying to say is that statistically, second hand smoke hasn't appeared to be a significant problem in the causation of lung disease. This is, of course, despite claims by leftist lawyers to the contrary (and please note that they seem to be getting their paycheck on just that issue - follow the money). Anyway, I'm certain that it is a matter of degree - that is, just smelling smoke isn't going to cause a problem, but constantly breathing a thick cloud of smoke most likely has an association with lung disease. A better approach might have been to require a certain amount of maximum particulate indoor pollution, measured over time in "public" places.
On the other hand, what do we call the "products of combustion" in other circumstances? A: Air pollution. Science backs up the fact that sludge in the air irritates our lungs.
Again, I think its a matter of how much stuff is in the air, along with a person's tolerance to smoke. Having a good air filtration system works wonders with regard to removing smoke from restaurants and bars.
I'm not sure how I got into this :-). I certainly have no interest in regulating other people's smoking!
Smoking discussions are often exciting. :^) I used to smoke myself, but I gave them up (again) just over a year ago. Smelling smoke doesn't bother me, but I've learned that I simply cannot have "just one" cigarette. And I learned that quitting is, how do you say it, "emotionally taxing" at times. I was pretty edgy for a few months last year.
I don't look at this issue as a smoking issue as much as I see it as a property rights issue.
Anyway, I'm certain that it is a matter of degree - that is, just smelling smoke isn't going to cause a problem, but constantly breathing a thick cloud of smoke most likely has an association with lung disease. A better approach might have been to require a certain amount of maximum particulate indoor pollution, measured over time in "public" places.
Spot on in both respects. OSHA has stated publicly that the toxins that appear in environmental tobacco smoke in measurable quantities fall far below any permissible levels already set for those toxins. For instance, it would take 14,285 cigarettes burning at one time in a 20' sealed square room with a 9' ceiling to reach the permissible level of acetaldehyde, to reach permissible levels of benzo[a]Pyrene would require 222,000, and so on. Every reputable scientist admits the dose makes the poison. Hell, we drink arsenic every time we drink tap water. But the anti-smoker groups are adamant about the rhetoric they use: "there is no safe level of shs." A few years back ASH, one of the biggest, oldest, nastiest anti-smoker organizations (run by attorney John Banzhaf), sued OSHA to address the issue. Last year OSHA answered, saying "if we address this issue, we will set a permissible level." ASH dropped the lawsuit and the spinning began in the press about how great it was.
Ventilation is, of course, the answer to the perceived problem of accommodating everyone, if the free market solution is just not good enough or if they demand to call it a labor issue, but antis won't even consider it and run roughshod over anyone who suggests such a logical alternative.