I can't argue with that, Jman. I could see that happening, too.
Of course, there are those who think the "slippery slope" argument is ridiculous.
They never stop to think that the ANTZ made all of the scientific arguments fighting for separate smoking areas and then turned around and claimed that separate smoking areas were "like non-...... areas in a swimming pool" and you'd need "hurricane-force winds" in a restaurant with a smoking area to make it "safe." So they argued smokers should instead be outside, where they didn't pose a risk to bystanders. Now, they are banning smoking outside, because it poses a risk to bystanders.
Nope. No "slippery slope" here. Move along, people.
Of course, there are those who think the "slippery slope" argument is ridiculous.
They never stop to think that the ANTZ made all of the scientific arguments fighting for separate smoking areas and then turned around and claimed that separate smoking areas were "like non-...... areas in a swimming pool" and you'd need "hurricane-force winds" in a restaurant with a smoking area to make it "safe." So they argued smokers should instead be outside, where they didn't pose a risk to bystanders. Now, they are banning smoking outside, because it poses a risk to bystanders.
Nope. No "slippery slope" here. Move along, people.