this is from june, 1994.

that's 23 years ago.

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.

yet, we still cannot take it seriously.

i mean, maybe it's just a conspiracy by the chinese to eliminate jobs in the tobacco fields. or maybe we're absurdly slow learners.

https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/setting-record-straight-secondhand-smoke-preventable-health-risk

if there was asbestos in the building, do you think a landlord would be within their rights to suggest that it is not a non-asbestos building and if the asbestos bothers the tenant then that tenant should move to a non-asbestos building?

you're right: it's not a good comparison. but, it's not a good comparison because second hand smoke is far more deadly than asbestos is.

i live in a very progressive left-leaning legal jurisdiction. we have "social justice tribunals". and, they're exactly what they sound like.

i am not certain, but think the property owners are dual american citizens and have spent much of their lives in the united states.

as noted: they're in for a surprise.

they don't understand what the law is, they don't understand what their legal obligations are, they don't understand why i'm suing them and they don't understand what they need to do to avoid it.

it's just "muh property, muh rules".

nope. sorry.

it's going to be a beautiful wall, folks.

i had no choice but to sleep last night, whether i liked it or not. and i slept for over 12 hours, too.

today is also likely a light day.

you didn't expect a standard opinion on this, did you?

here's the reality: 24 year-olds have been fucking 17 year-olds since the time that we speciated. not only is this not perverted, but trying to prevent it is delusional.

you will never stop young teachers from fucking mature students, and giving young teachers these kinds of jobs is like locking dogs in a room and expecting them to behave themselves. we need to get out of the victorian age, here, and enter the darwinian one. what this is is a recipe for great sex.

so, we need to take one of two positions here if we want to come back to reality:

1) maybe this isn't so bad, really. he was 17, after all. he wasn't 12. or..
2) we need to take steps to raise the age of teachers entering the classroom, like demanding that teachers get a masters degree before they go to teachers college, if they want to teach high school.

but, if you think you're going to keep putting women in their early 20s into classrooms with boys in their late teens and expect them to not have sex, you're living in a fantasy reality - this is absolutely biologically normal behaviour.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3031406/dr-phil-interview-leads-to-more-charges-for-teacher-who-had-sex-with-student-then-became-a-stripper/