LadyBelle,

Granted, second hand smoke at the very least is quite annoying to non-smokers in close proximity. However, there has never been solid scientific empirical data which asserts unequivocally that second hand smoke is harmful leading to the plethora of malevolent illnesses linked to it by popular assertion.

Have said that, I’m not narrow minded enough to suggest that just because there isn’t scientific proof (meaning the gold standard double blind placebo variety) doesn’t necessarily mean second smoke is purely benign. I’m merely suggesting that second hand smoke isn’t any more harmful than carbon monoxide exhaust from cars, or the variety of pollutants created by industrial plants, or even the pesticides used to mass produce vegetable fare. That being the case, why isn’t there more hoopla about people abstaining from driving? Shut down those industrial plants? Lets never use plastic or Styrofoam again?

Simple, we don’t because the majority still enjoys driving, drinking, cheap veggies, and coffee cups which doesn’t burn our fingers—and, therefore the side-effects, even if harmful, is acceptable. Smokers are the minority now, and their interests aren’t important enough to the majority to tolerate the possible side effects of their “smoking” leisure.

In my view, that’s basically it. Why don’t we berate alcohol consumption with the same vitriolic scorn, which we do with cigarette smokers in our society? Drunk drivers kill more people per year than second hand smoke every could in a 10 years even if the dubious assertions of it’s effects were somehow proven factual. Simply, the majority enjoys alcohol.

As Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst government imaginable, but it’s the best we have.” Too true, and for the minority, majority rules really sucks!

With kindest regards,

Frederick