Don't worry I read your post. I think I just had a brain fart.
The main point I was trying to get across, in fewer words, was that eating at a restaurant is a choice, and unfortunately you and people like you forced to become part of the ongoing campaign to change food practices in the food establishment. I think things are changing but it's happening slow. You have an allergy to shellfish, but all humans are vulnerable to the chemicals in cigarette smoke, and which are you more likely to find in a park? At least shellfish has nutritious content that most people can consume. What benefit is there to smoking cigarettes? Yeah nicotine has health benefits, but mixed in with over 1,000 other harmful chemicals?
Are you using a narrow definition of "benefit" to only include health benefits?
And I can start listing the negative health impacts of shellfish if we need to. In fact, shellfish poisoning is a real thing and has been known for centuries.
Again, if private establishments want to allow smoking, then I don't have to go into them, but public spaces should be neutral. Speaking of which, there are two ideas of "neutral" happening here: one is that a smoke-free park/beach is the most neutral; the other is that people doing what they want but respecting others is the most neutral. In an ideal world, I would choose the second option, but in reality, for every considerate smoker there are many others who just don't give a crap. I shouldn't have to breathe one iota of their crap if I don't want to, and if I have my beach blanket setup, my picnic laid out and I'm sitting there with my significant other having a good time, I shouldn't have to pack up because someone lights up a cancerous material nearby. THEY should smoke at home.
The point I've been making is that your risks from someone else smoking at the beach while you are having your picnic are minimal, nad the issue is primarily that you don't like cigarrettes. Which is perfectly reasonable.
Whereas when someone comes on by and sets up their picnic and starts grilling shrimp on the barbie, the risk to me is actually higher than the risk you have from the smoke (because the allergens
do get expelled into the air,
especially during the cooking process). I shouldn't have to pack up and go home just because someone ignorantly starts spewing something that is
very poisonous to me up in the air. They should eat their shellfish at
home.
I'm applying the same logic that non-smokers are suing on the smoking ban to shellfish because, for me, shellfish is a very deadly poison even
if I do not consume it myself. It is comparable to effects of SHS
for me, although more immediate and intense. And I'm not alone. It's the most common allergy among adults. My allergy just happens to be more extreme than normal.
When most non-smokers choose to leave because they don't want to be around smoke, they are doing so because they wish to avoid mild discomfort. But they do have the option of staying and, in the worst case scenario, endure that mild discomfort.
But when I leave the area because someone starts grilling up shellfish, I'm not really doing it by choice, I'm leaving by necessity because I'm
not taking the risk of having a full blown attack on a beach or at a park because that is legitimately life-threatening. Technically I could choose to stay as well, but if I take that risk the worst case scenario is a hell of a lot worse than just mild discomfort. After having had some major attacks, I don't want to put any degree of risk upon myself anymore becuase the reactions are hard to predict. It's posible to have amajor attack from the particles in the air.
And I have had to move my location at public places numerous times because of shellfish being cooked because, as I've said, the risk is far too high to take the chance, IMO.
But I'm
not arguing in favor of a shellfish ban. I'm explaining how this "burden" that I have gives me a different perspective regarding a less immediate (although admittedly more common) "burden" placed on the average non-smoker.
My belief is that the argumetn in faovr of such bans have nothig to do with the dangers of second-hand smoke in public.
If it was, there would be little resistance to my position about shellfish from those in favor of the ban.
Instead, I believe this is entirely about their
own discomfort. They don't
like being around it, so they wish to make it so that they never have to be. If it didn't cause that mild discomfort, they wouldn't be btohered by smoke.
I use my expereinces with shellfish to expose what I believe is the lie in their arguments. It's not really about the danger posed to people who choose to not engage in the behavior, because they support another behavior being allowed which poses a more immediate danger to those who choose not to engage in the bahavior. The difference being that if
that behavior were "banned", it would lead to discomfort for them, because most of them enjoy engaging in that behavior
themselves. Moot did a great job of proving my point on that by expressing sympathy for me since I cannot eat something that the "loves, yum".
The point is, even something we personally consider benign can be an extremely malignant action for other people who may be in our presence.
And here's the thing, at least some non-smokers will abide by a request to not smoke around them if asked politely. They can place themselves into the non-smokers shoes and be considerate of their desires.
I have
yet to meet a shellfish eater that I do not already know who will do the same. Try it sometime. If you are at a restaurant and the person at the table next to you starts ordering shellfish kindly and politely ask them if they would be willing to get something else because you have a severe shellfish allergy. Or try it next time you are out with a large group of people where you may not know everyone at the table with you. Politely request that nobody orders shellfish becuase of your allergy. If someone doesn't listen, ask the server if you can be seated elsewhere on your own. You'll be treated like an asshole. With the stranger at the other table, you'll moist likely get a "tough ****. Don't go to restaurants then" and with the people at your table they might abide by the request, but they
are going to act like you victimized them by making it. Snide comments about
somebody spoiling their dinner or asinine bull**** like "I think you are just overreacting. I'm allergic to (insert something they have a mild allergy to here) and I can be around it without any problem."
prof Shellfish isn't addictive). 
