How to stop smoker discrimination.?
So those that like to discriminate others based on their personal habits have found an EXCUSE that seems to be enough in many political rings to allow politicians to join the discrimination band wagon.
I find it appalling how many are so eager to discriminate others on personal habits. I thought legal discrimination had been done away with years ago. What will be next? Banning pregnant women from being outside because sun causes cancer - and her baby has rights too? Banning gum chewing because germs can spread? Regulating finger-nail lengths since they can carry UN-healthy and spreadable diseases? Any one of these personal habits could be dramatized and pegged by the media and health officials and be the blame for x-number of deaths every year. We hear this nut-job mentality everyday.
What is the best way to stop this discrimination and bullying? How do you get politicians to be reasonable about the FACT that no matter how many lies and drama-queen statements have been made about smoke, it's still just 1/4"s of dried weeds emitting smoke; just like camp fires, weed burning, and vehicle exhaust. Its discriminating that they target the least pollutant of all the other combustible items we deal with.
I find it a bit selfish and self-entitling that one would say no-one else has a right to do something because it affects what one smells or finds irritating. Heck on those premises we could ban farting, regulate showering times, and ban talking (which can become very annoying.)
Sorry there is so many that have been mis-informed and manipulated so easily. It's still just smoke and no matter how much one tries to dramatizes it and tries so hard to call it a major concern - it still doesn't break the laws of science; The only death that could ever occur from smoke is in massive concentrated amounts like being inside a house on fire.
------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen
http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/980717osteen.html
“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)