Agreed. I don't think I said (or meant to imply) that I don't like smoking and non-smoking sections. If I did, my bad. All I ask is that someone be able to frequent an establishment with the choice to expose or not expose themselves to other's smoke. I wish they'd do that at bars, but they won't because so many people only smoke when they drink. The financial impact is much greater. I just feel like my personal freedom to be smoke free should be superceded by someone's personal freedom to smoke.
To that extent, however, it just becomes an argument of "If you don't like me smoking, go somewhere else" vs. "If you don't like not smoking here, go somewhere else".
You are absolutely correct. In fact, because of the incorrect stigma that all lung cancer victims are smokers, lung cancer is by far the least funded cancer research. Most might be smokers, but some are not, and they are getting screwed because research money is rarely appropriated to lung cancer research.
Everyone knows that now. Back in the 60's, they didn't. In fact, tobacco companies systematically covered up that their product was not only harmful, but addictive.
Anyone who started smoking within the last 20 years or so (or however long the industry has been outed) has no right to sue. Agreed. But there is a segment of the population who were lied to. You can't white wash everyone the same.
)
