You provide no rpoof, scientific or anecdotal. All you do is say, in effect, "I don't like it and it should be banned and I'm a conservative."
This issue is NOT about smoking, at least not to me.
It is about the government taking my liberties, incrementally, for no good reason other than someone doesn't LIKE it, and waiting for the next chance to do the same thing to any other liberties I may have kept to this point.
Until someone can prove conclusively that ETS (second hand smoke) causes irreparable harm to a non smoker, the government should keep their noses out of it.
If that makes me a conservative of the old school, fine.
If that makes me a libertarian, fine.
It also makes me someone, it seems, in the minority of government circles.
I have no problem with you disliking smoking. Just don't use the government to impose your morals on me for no reason other than your dislikes.
Scientific? Didn't I say that "health" had nothing to do with it? How in the name of Sam Hill do you "scientifically" prove something is immoral or a vice? And I didn't say my health was being harmed by second hand smoke. I said I'm forced to breathe it. Does it have to be "unhealthy" for me to oppose that?
I have no problem with you disliking smoking. Just don't use the government to impose your morals on me for no reason other than your dislikes.
Isn't there a nice anarchist forum somewhere where you could wax eloquent about the inherent goodness of human nature and the inherent "oppression" that comes with legislating morality?