Honestly, I wish the smoking issue had been considered in a less "all or nothing" type of climate. I would have liked to have seen some other solutions, and it likely would have never gotten to the point where an all out smoking ban was considered.
Proper ventilation goes a pretty long way to cutting it down. Some of the nicer bars in the area really don't have that bad of a smoke problem.
I agree with you. I'd like to see the discussion evolve into a more reasonable debate too. I applaud your intent, even if there's a detectable element of "sideways" to it. My point of contention with your line of reasoning has been what seems to be an attempt to use the appearance of objectivity to push an otherwise less than objective point of view.
Not to be picking on you, but because you are willing to engage in a reasonable conversation on this topic, I want to point out to you what I see as the flaws in your logic. Please feel free to address mine so I can learn where I may be purposefully putting on blinders.
One of the flaws in your logic stems from convenient comments like,
"...most people that spend a significant amount of time in bars are people that would probably prefer not to have a smoking ban..."
Facts not in evidence. If this comment did hold water, the points you make based upon this broad and dubious comment, might be valid.
Following it up with comments along the lines of;
"The cause is being pushed on everyone mostly by people with no stake in it"
et al, make for a very convenient point of view for you, but in fact only serves to try to make the other side seem like people who have nothing better to do with their time than make life hard for the "persecuted smoker".
Remove your speculation about the audience and their supposed agenda and deal with the facts - that the people whose ability to choose to/choose not - are smokers. The last time I checked, smoking was a voluntary activity.
Further, the idea that business suffers and economies are damaged by such bans is debatable. There are many instances of smoking bans nationwide where the hue and cry from those opposed to such bans was centered on how it would crush business. The results have not born that out.
There are other solutions than an outright ban and I believe most, if not all who support a ban would easily get behind things like smokers recognizing that it's really
their choice to make and the choice
should be to voluntarily segregate themselves to engage in their chosen activity.
Business can chose to make considerations for smoking - like well ventilated environments or comfortable outdoor areas - but again, mandating that a business must spend $$ to make such accommodations is really where some of the ire should be directed. A smoker does not have to smoke. If they want to smoke, they should be able to do so away from people who don't want to breathe it.
...but a headache does not a significant health risk make.
A lump does not cancer make...
A sore throat does not strep make...
These are symptoms. Like a headache, they are there to inform us that something in our system is not right. Choosing to ignore them for whatever reason, while it's your choice to make, does not change the fact that they are there for a reason. That reason is usually because something in your system is reacting badly to something that's been introduced.
