smoking

Thanks Mike, for taking the time to present a supported counter-argument. And I'm glad you think it reasonable to have smoke-free venues if people want them. However...I'm not certain how you can continue to be unconvinced about health risks? 1) I noticed the PDF text you cited at the bottom of your post was supported by the Tobacco Institute. This makes me slightly wary of facts presented by someone with an agenda. (Mind you, I concede that any facts I am likely to present are probably from sources like the Quit Campaign or Healthway, who equally have an agenda.) 2) A good deal of the scientific research in that article you referenced has been amended, refuted, or superceded...it was written 17 years ago! Its most recent reference source being 1989! Could you not find anything more up to date? I'd prefer to trust this 2009 article: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp Most of its references are no older than 2005, with the bulk of it current this year. This is the current (2009) Surgeon-General's statement about secondhand smoke (my capitals): "The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is NO RISK-FREE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack. " You said: >Quite often people refer to the '40 carcinogenic compounds' secondary smoke >supposedly contains. In reality only six of those have in fact been classified as >'known human carcinogens' (1989 Report of the Surgeon General. pgs. 86-87). But in 1993, the EPA made a report which was backed by the US Surgeon General: "The EPA report classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, a designation which means that there is sufficient evidence that the substance causes cancer in humans. The Group A designation has been used by EPA for only 15 other pollutants, including asbestos, radon, and benzene. Only secondhand smoke has actually been shown in studies to cause cancer at typical environmental levels. " Feel free to browse these references that I have checked up on, all recent: www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/ www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 http://www.nasdonline.org/docs/d001001-d001100/d001030/d001030.html http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/environmental_tobacco/pdf/app3partb2005.pdf (The last one runs to 526 pages, so I only recommend reading the summary at the beginning.) . While we have approached this from the viewpoint of the audience (who are admittedly only going to receive minimal exposure from any one event), we have not yet considered the other cast and crew members who are obliged to be in the vicinity of the smoke night after night. There is an increased awareness and concern about the incidence of exposure to smoke in the workplace. It has already had major effect on the hospitality industry, but extends to all other occupations, including the professional theatre industry. Workers are within their rights to demand a safe working environment. Liability insurance will soon make it a huge economic concern. The amateur theatre world is likely to escape any immediate regulations, but probably not the insurance risks, or the ability of the individual to sue for health damages. While I haven't checked up on all of your facts, I get the feeling from your out-dated evidence that you are trying to blow smoke in my eyes... Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------