[FoRK] Smoking, etc.
Stephen D. Williams
sdw at lig.net
Wed Apr 13 06:33:16 PDT 2005
Of course. I wasn't clear that I was agreeing with you and answering
other messages. I just chose to make the statement at your message.
Joe Barrera wrote:
> I do hope you notice my use of the word "toxic".
> Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>> The point here is physical harm offensiveness vs. offensiveness.
>> Back in the 50s it was merely offensive for someone to smoke in the
>> office. Then, very slowly, we realized why everyone was dropping
>> dead at 50 and it was recognized as actual physical injury.
>> The US, and many societies, have drawn a strong distinction between
>> physical and non-physical annoyance. Unless you can argue
>> convincingly that second hand smoke has no physical consequences at
>> all, it's an intrusion that is really out of bounds. A similar but
>> more gray area concerns the hypersensitive and perfumes. A much less
>> gray area, nonetheless raised in debate, is psychosomatic physical
>> consequences. At that level, people have an internal issue much more
>> than an external one and you can't really fault the stimulus in most
>> Joe Barrera wrote:
>>> Cigarettes smell like ass but are more toxic.
>>> If the majority doesn't want to smell toxic ass,
>>> why shouldn't it have its say?
>>> I don't see what that has to do with any "nanny state".
>>> - Joe
>>> FoRK mailing list
swilliams at hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw at lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw
More information about the FoRK