tiempo del fumar

[Jeremy David]

On 3/16/06, gwen <gwenix at gmail.com> wrote:

> But, you're saying, "Hey, life isn't fair, so suck it up that you
> can't go where the smokers go, because they can smoke and you can't,"
> isn't really a justification... unless you are an Objectivist.  And I
> think that's why people are getting you confused with one, because you
> claim to dislike them, and yet you use their own method of arguing for
> something.  No, people who can't survive smokers can't join us at the
> goth clubs at this time -- and there is at least one of them on this
> list.  But is this really fair or right?  Your words here indicates
> that it isn't.

And unless you're paranoid about every doctor in the world being
involved in some evil conspiracy against mankind, you'll believe not
only that smoking won't just kill some people, but that smoking,
weather active or passive, can kill anyone.

> Ideally, I would like *all* to be able to go out to the nights they
> want to, see their friends, dance, laugh at the monkey boys, complain
> about the music, and shout "WHAT???" a lot.  Er, wait, why are we
> fighting for this again?

Hey, me too. But unfortunately many of these places are polluted with
toxic fumes. There are laws restricting the use of just about every
other kind of toxic material, why not this one? Because many people
are addicted to it, and because a handful of people are getting filthy
rich off of it and paying off our lawmakers to make sure that it's not
restricted like basically every other similar chemical.

I don't think anyone is arguing that smoking should be illegal. But
some people think that because it's dangerous, it should be
controlled, and that deference should be given to those of us who
aren't polluting the air. I think that's being more than fair.