andrew, your logic is flawed...the misuse of science in the smoking debate doesn't mean that all smoking science is bad...as a former smoker i can attest that a night spent in a smoky bar, whether working or as a patron, results in more damage to my lungs and so forth than simply smoking a few cigarettes...a roomful of smoke is equivalent to smoking full-time...the only way to get more smoke in your body is to smoke in a room full of smoke. there is no such thing as "adequate" ventillation when it comes to a room full of smokers...being lucky enough to live in a city with a ban on smoking in restaurants and bars i feel free for the first time in years to go out at night without the concern of waking up with a smokers hangover, stinky clothes, and a three-day cough.

once again, we have a beautiful example of how binary/dualistic/either-or/two party thinking results in a solution that pleases one group and displeases another. rodney king asked the question...i propose the answer...yes, we can all get along if we put our heads together and operate in good faith.

there are no easy solutions to the smokers/non-smokers debate. and please don't confuse the question of where you can smoke with the question of whether you can smoke. i personally support the legalization of all drugs, yet i don't want people snorting lines on the subway or shooting up out in the park. perhaps smokers need to organize and, recognizing that their habit is offensive and dangerous, open private smoking clubs or petition for amendments to the legislation to allow for special smoking-only break rooms in office buildings, etc.