Jonathan Cass wrote:
Yes -- the point being that they are both wrong.
Wrong in what sense?
Are you saying that pharmacies should not sell harmful substances? Fine-- but that'd include a lot of drug treatments, including naproxen sodium, which can play hell with your liver. Are you saying they shouldn't sell addictive substances-- which'd include cough medicines? And given that nicotine is addictive, shouldn't an addict be able to obtain the substance through a regulated, controlled source, much as methadone clinics operate? Is it the issue of secondhand smoke-- or would you extend this ban to chewing tobacco or nicotine patches?
Or perhaps I am misunderstanding things entirely, and your issue is not so much pharmacies and cigarettes as it is the _White Dog_ specifically allowing smoking? Is there something specific about the White Dog (where, in fact, I will be having lunch shortly) that makes its smoking policy especially egregious? Would this mean that other restaurants without this special quality are OK in allowing smoking?
What about cigars? Marijuana? Especially aromatic s'mores?
Jonathan Cass wrote:
Hmm -- I don't mean to be harsh Naomi, but that sounds like a big fat justification to me: "Hey, we treat our staff better than most other restaurants so it is okay that we subject them to a known carcinogen."
The White Dog permitting smoking is akin to a pharmacy selling cigarettes.
Well, pharmacies _do_ sell cigarettes.
Man, ever since the SATs dropped their "analogies" section, discourse
has gone to hell.
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
