Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cbosgd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!cca!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!cbosgd!mark From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics Subject: Re: A Flame at Affirmative Action Message-ID: <27@cbosgd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 4-Jun-83 23:15:07 EDT Article-I.D.: cbosgd.27 Posted: Sat Jun 4 23:15:07 1983 Date-Received: Mon, 6-Jun-83 20:59:16 EDT References: <1539@rabbit.UUCP>, <1556@floyd.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Columbus Lines: 21 I don't quite buy Andy's comparsion of AA to blowing off the heads of smokers. I too am very annoyed by cigarette smoke (I'm allergic to it) and try to avoid smokers. I try to frequent eateries with non-smoking sections. I strongly favor any legislation to make my life easier in this regard, and was amazed at how the tobacco industry bought the elections in California a few years back that tried to set up smoking/non-smoking sections everywhere. I applaud whatever Diane recently signed (although details are scant out here in the land of the corn insecticide commercial). But this is not my point. Let's make a more rational comparison, say AA vs. legislation that completely outlaws smoking. (Assume nicotine tablets would be made available by perscription for persons already addicted.) The same arguments can be made - the ends justify the means. In fact, the only people hurt would be the tobacco industry (for which I feel absolutely no sympathy) and existing smokers (for whom I feel some, but very limited, sympathy). Now, Andy, care to shoot this one down? (Actually, this may start another good debate, but I'm not sure I can see how the two examples relate to each other.) Mark Horton