On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 15:11 -0600, Jan Depner wrote: > On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 15:59 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 12:42 -0600, Jan Depner wrote: > > > Smoking, on the other hand, produces carcinogenic compounds that > > > others > > > would be forced to breathe. > > > > > > > So does car exhaust but no one seems to care about that. The hospital > > down the street has "Clean Air Zone" signs all over it stating that it's > > verboten to smoke anywhere on the premises. But people can and do sit > > with their engine idling 10 feet from the door to the ER for hours. > > > > (sorry this is one of my pet peeves - I am not pro-secondhand smoke but > > anti-hypocrisy) > > > > I'm not a hypocrite. I *have* to drive so I can go to work. I'd > say a good 85% of people have to drive if they work outside the home. > No one has to smoke, period. Trust me, I know. I used to smoke two > packs a day (27 years ago). Now, if we could just get some clean fuels > we could clear up the exhaust problem but that'll take a while I think. > I wasn't calling you a hypocrite, the hypocrisy is in calling it a "Clean Air Zone" rather than a "No Smoking Area". The smoking issue was a bad example as there's massive hypocrisy and doublespeak on both sides of that debate. Lee
