Russell wrote:Your statement that it depends on the person whether second-hand smoke is bad for one's health is irrelevant. Similar arguments were also made with regard to smokers in the past. As long as there are non-smokers whose health is affected (and there are plenty), there should be no question about preferred policies. Kind of funny that I never hear of anyone frequenting a smoker's place to improve one's health.
You have a bad habit of both changing the argument and misquoting. The discussion you entered was whether or not it has been scientifically proven that second-hand smoke is bad for one's health. You narrowed that to whether or not it bothers people with asthma when questions were raised about your assertions. You also have twisted what I wrote about asthma to try and bolster your argument about second-hand smoke and how it affects the general public.