Posted 23 June 2012 - 07:59 AM
Johnny-come-lately, here (that is, Jeffrey-come-lately) .... I just read through every post. No one seems to acknowledge that smoking can also offer benefits to a person--the nature and degree of such depending entirely upon the preferences and consititution (both physiological and psychological) of that person. Given that, it can be entirely reasonable for a person to smoke, rather than to not smoke.
But--that said, it IS hard, awfully, to comprehend a dancer smoking! One would think that the lung capacity would be so diminished as to make it wholly unprofitable. But again, it all depends upon the individual; some can probably withstand whatever ill effects smoking might induce, better than others can. In the end, it's their decision, and they ought to be left alone to make it.
(As for the legality of it, the key is property rights: one is free to allow smoking or not, on one's own property--be it a house, a restaurant, a theatre, or a stadium.... That is, one SHOULD be free to allow it within the domain of one's own property, or not: but not in this totalitarian era, when individual rights are vanishing faster than the execution of a grand jete.)
(As for smoking "in public", there is no viable solution: "public property" is not, by definition, governed by principles applicable to private property. Since it's effectively "owned" by everyone, it's owned by no one--and unending, irresolvable conflict is the inevitable result. Economists refer to this conundrum as "the tragedy of the commons." The solution to which conundrum is obvious: abolish "public property", as such, by transferring it into private ownership.... Yes, even the streets--and the highways, too; and the oceans; and the airspace.)