If an adult, willfully walks into a bar or Restaurant (which has a sign clearly displayed) and breathes second hand smoke, it's considered dangerous to the point that we need laws to protect that person. Meaning banning the behavior.
But if a child, without any choice steps into a car with his/her parents and breathes second hand smoke, we must first prove that the smoke is doing the child some harm before a law should be passed??
And this makes sense to you??
Alexa, although we have argued back and forth on this issue. You scoring your points and (hopefully) I scoring mine. This point, it seems to me, is at the heart of this debate.
I believe I have a comprimise....:-)
First the major question is Does second hand smoke constitute a real public health problem? And What levels of second hand smoke are dangerous? Surely there is some scientific evidence to suggest that concentrations above or below a certain ppm level can be arrived at.
Shoot! I bet with a 6 month grant Alex could figure it out pretty well!
Then after the scientific data has been objectively analyzed, invent (which I'm sure someone has already) a device which measures second hand smoke, and require them to be placed in bars or Restaurants. Set a reasonable limit to exposure, and voluntarily ask the establishment to not exceed this level?
Sounds allot better than forcing everyone to adhere to anti-smokers dictates.
And I bet since it's voluntary, and a reasonable compromise, people would actually self-enforce it.
e.g. Whoops, alarm went off, ok you guys take the next smoke outside will ya?
Michael |
