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