Why "loss of productivity" is NOT an issue

Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net
Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:41:42 -0500


Tom wrote:

> Ok let me clearifiythis before the trained monkey dances all over it.
>
> For substances and spplications where intrusion is non filterable

Second-hand smoke is *always* filterable.  Just remove yourself from the
context.  This should work for you, as it's an argument that's commonly
employed on this list whenever the tax thing comes up.  "If you can't stand
the heat, get out of the kitchen."

> or where
> intrusion is pushed on to other parties it is a good thing to make sure
> your not shlopping your spew onto others.

I'm happy to be even more than magnanimous, Tom.  I've no reason at all to
shlopp my spew on you or yours or anyone else who cares, as long as you (a)
don't agitate for the removal of smoking rights in *all* public venues, i.e.,
designated smoking areas are still okay and you either don't enter them or you
put up / shut up, and (b) you filter with your feet in the case where we're
talking about outdoor areas.  As long as you can handle those stipulations,
you and I will get along "jist fin'."

> In case your still not hip to the think, replace  the words "cigerte
> smoke" with "mustard gas" and see if your still down wit it.

Of course not, but it's the same old question of degrees and endangerment.  If
you really think that the smoke of burning tobacco is as deadly a threat as
mustard gas, they've really done a number on you...

jb