I remember when that article first came out. As I note elsewhere, the fundamental flaw in his logic is thinking, 'if something is worse than tobacco smoke, then

I remember when that article first came out. As I note elsewhere, the fundamental flaw in his logic is thinking, 'if something is worse than tobacco smoke, then it must be banned!' My own thought is, 'if tobacco smoke is less bad than wood smoke, then it must not be banned!' A world without wood smoke would be a poorer, sadder, less pleasant-smelling world. Yes, it's a pollutant. Yes, it's carcinogenic. But it's one of the things which makes life worth living.