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?
And once again you prove that you're not willing to debate this point.
I haven't called you any names, I haven't even implied that you are not a conservative or a not nice person, and all I get from you are insults and implications.
I'll chalk it up to the fact, according to you, that you feel picked on.
I have said that I have no problem with your "opposing" your breathing second hand smoke. However, you can do that without legislating that businesses cannot allow smoking.
Most things of this nature that the government controls are done so on a "public health and safety" basis.
Temperatures for food, specific cleaners that can, or cannot, be used in specific settings, etc.
Morality cannot be 'legislated', it comes from within.