Rock...no...that is not at ALL what I was arguing. I think you misunderstood me....but we may still disagree so I'll try to clarify.
1. I think that smoke is nasty stuff (smelly, causes ashtma aggravation etc.) that others who DON'T want to shouldn't have to breath in. So...if the government wants to ban smoking in places THEY own...and you and others want to ban it in the private places you own...than that is just fine with me. It is also appropriate to ban it in general work places where both groups must necessarily come together but one would also hope for some accommodation to those with THIS disability!
2. I believe that those who DO smoke should be able to have indoor places they can go to and smoke if other private owners wish to provide them. Call it "Joe's Smoking Pub" as opposed to "Jim's Non-Smoking Pub". I in no way support forcing non-smokers to breath in any one elses smoke unless they
choose to patronize a place that allows it. With about 80% of the public non-smoking...the number of pubs, restaurants, movie theaters etc. that could survive catering to the 20% is limited...but anyone should be able to try to appeal to either side.
3. My 3rd point had NOTHING to do with the public smoking arguments above at all. I simply stated that the studies which claim to show a link between second hand smoke and cancer are flawed in methodology and even if you accept the results...the causation link is very weak. I don't deny there are bad things in cigarette smoke...just not enough of them to cause cancer in others in the "room".
Nevertheless...I support your right not to breath in other people's smoke in government buildings and offices where people of all types must work and be together. I just also support the right of others who do smoke to be able to find or start places where ONLY smokers are desired as customers.
Do we still disagree?
