🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <34D0215C.7ABFB8FA@nospam.net>, Sam McClintock 
<mac-nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>charliew@hal-pc.org wrote:
>
>> Let's see.  3,000 deaths/year. 250 million U.S. citizens.  25% of the 
adult
>> population smokes.
>>
>> Assume 60 million smokers.  Also assume 60 million non-smokers are 
exposed
>> to this "threat" per year.  3000 deaths/year equates to 1/20,000 chance 
of
>> dieing from this cause per year.  Yea, that's a REAL threat.
>
>It is a real threat if you have no chance of avoiding that smoke (can you
>saychildren) and all other factors are minimalistic.  In other words, if 
you
>are the
>person being directly impacted with second hand smoke your odds of
>encountering a problem are greatly increased.  In the event you just wish 
to
>consider randomized exposure, it is still a problem in terms of health of
>those who do not do well under those circumstances (asthma, etc.) and
>those who in the past could not escape the problem in the workplace
>which were considerable (a problem since corrected).
>
>More importantly, the example is a clear case in which the source being
>very biased towards any science which remotely jeopardizes conservative
>interests.
>
>Sam McClintock
>please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
>

Let's try to get this debate into the scope of the "big picture".  Many of 
the people exposed to second hand smoke are spouses.  They can readily 
leave any time they wish.  They married the smoker knowing full well that 
the habit is bad.  They voluntarily had children with the smoker, knowing 
full well that their children would be exposed.  If it normally takes an 
adult smoker 30-40 years to suffer major effects from very high 
concentrations of smoke, you're telling me that children will suffer major 
effects in a few years from much lower concentrations.  I doubt that this 
is so.  Even if it is, do you insist that the parents are either incapable, 
unwilling, or abusive, regarding their children in this situation?  Where 
does big government end, and parental authority begin?  

There are some issues which don't have a damned thing to do with science,  
politics, or "conservative interests".  This particular situation has 
everything to do with a big intrusive government infringing on parental 
authority.  If you cannot manage to understand this, you have my 
sympathies.

BTW, I don't like tobacco smoke any more than you do.  Nevertheless, I have 
consciously decided to adopt an attitude of increased humility when it 
comes to interferring with how other people raise their children.  I only 
wish that more people didn't have the "holier than thou" syndrome, and 
learned to think a bit more before acting.