Re: [Mpls] The Freedom to Breathe
Wrong! All retail establishments are licensed public accommodations - licensed to serve food, beverages of varying alcoholic content (or none) and music with or with out dancing. Public accommodations is a definition in law that requires the proprietor to serve all who enter in a safe environment, free of poisonous food, drink, people - and air. They are NOT required to accommodate people who hurt other people, even passively, with their poisonous smoke. And for gosh-sakes, this is NOT a partisan issue. Cancer, Lung Disease, Heart Disease and Death know no politics and no party. These are nondiscriminatory and nonpartisan. They take us all, one or more of them, eventually. Stop trying to split the ranks by calling this a Democrats' proposal simply because a Republican didn't think of it. Your kids can die from other people's smoking just like the rest of ours. The bar isn't low enough for the public health to be properly served - down, down you go when you do the Limbo. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul Former smoker and rabid convert to securing the public health - maybe even at your expense. -- on 5/6/04 11:33 PM, Mike Jensvold wrote: Bars and music clubs are private (at best quasi-public) places. The bar (sorry) should be set high for the government to tell private businesses and private citizens what to do. or workplace. Whether I work in a bank or a bar, I shouldn't have to get cancer to keep a job. Whether I want to meet friends in a coffee shop or a club, I Having taken an air pollution engineering class, I offer my opinion that incidental exposure just isn't enough of a risk to justify an outright ban. I take the issue of workers exposed to smoke much more seriously. Requiring disclosure of the risks and increasing ventilation requirements might be a good compromise to reduce the negative impact on public health. Surely we can come up with something innovative that doesn't prohibit people from smoking in bars for gosh-sakes. And to democrats wondering where your majorities went: perhaps it would be politically prudent to stop alienating the young and working class by focusing on issues like smoking and gun control, and get back to core economic issues. Mike Jensvold East Isles REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] The Freedom to Breathe
At 01:09 AM 5/7/2004, Andy Driscoll wrote: Wrong! All retail establishments are licensed public accommodations - licensed to serve food, beverages of varying alcoholic content (or none) and music with or with out dancing. Public accommodations is a definition in law that requires the proprietor to serve all who enter in a safe environment, free of poisonous food, drink, people - and air. They are NOT required to accommodate people who hurt other people, even passively, with their poisonous smoke. Unless the city of Minneapolis or other public entity owns a night club, its a private business. I understand the imperative to protect the public health by regulating quasi-public places, but I just think we should be careful and reasonable about telling people how to run their businesses. Of course if someone wants to run a smoke free bar, there's nothing stopping them. To open a larger debate, are all of our health and safety regulations necessary? Is it hypocritical, it this country to regulate restaurants so much in the name of public health, when we have no national health program, pay twice as much as any industrialized country on health care, and have poorer health to show for it? A friend of mine had been in a restaurant in Scotland, and another American who was with him quickly pointed out a half dozen things that would be illegal in America. What do we get in terms of a public health benefit for all of the county and state public health officials, regulations, etc, vis-a-vis other western countries that do not regulate as heavily? There was an article in a recent southwest journal about the over-regulation of bars. Ostensibly to protect the public health, over-regulation creates barriers to entry to make it very hard for a neighborhood to have its own, non-chain locally owned bar. And for gosh-sakes, this is NOT a partisan issue. Cancer, Lung Disease, Heart Disease and Death know no politics and no party. These are nondiscriminatory and nonpartisan. They take us all, one or more of them, eventually. Stop trying to split the ranks by calling this a Democrats' proposal simply because a Republican didn't think of it. Your kids can die from other people's smoking just like the rest of ours. I'm not trying to split the ranks, I'm sure there are some Republicans that would be for a ban. But I think its a fair criticism that democrats at times are the party of the nanny-state and its costing them votes. Pardon me if I wax intellectual for a moment, but this relegating of issues to ostensibly neutral experts on law, medicine, economics etc, is part of the long term disillusionment and disengagement of the populace in their democracy. You can pretend that it should be above politics, but in a democracy, nothing should be above politics. Here is the litmus test question again that none of the ban advocates seems to want to touch: Is it reasonable to completely prohibit smoking in bars, places which are not health spas, but where people go to drink, smoke, and perhaps be promiscuous? The bar isn't low enough for the public health to be properly served - down, down you go when you do the Limbo. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul Former smoker and rabid convert to securing the public health - maybe even at your expense. -- REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] The Freedom to Breathe
From: Jeremy Hanson Volumes of research from around the world show time and again that secondhand smoke causes cancer, causes heart diasease, causes asthma, and kills tens of thousands of nonsmokers each year. Cigarette smoke pollution contains asbestos, benzene, carbon monoxide, and dozens of other proven cancer causing chemicals. There is no denying this fact. No one would tolerate me going to First Ave and spraying asbestos or benzene into the air, yet we allow it becuase it's coming out of a cigarette? Asbestos? I was unaware that cigarettes contained asbestos. How exactly do asbestos fibers get into cigarettes and how do they escape? It is not a chemical, it is a mineral fiber often found in old insulation and siding. Sean Ryan Audubon _ Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
