Oops. didn't properly sign: Andy Driscoll Saint Paul
Sorry. ---------- > From: Andy Driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 13:03:44 -0600 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Mpls] smoke-free Minneapolis campaign? Please don't go there! > > Socialism Slavery, indeed. Lord, help us if the people actually start > controlling their country again. > > Employees, especially bar employees, often have no choice as to whether or not > they must work in a smoke-filled environment. > > Any retail operation is, under the law, a public accommodation. That means no > discrimination, including discrimination over access to their goods and > services without danger to health. If the atmosphere in a public accommodation > is not friendly to the public health, then the business has an obligation to > relieve sufferers from the imposition. > > The other matter is that it goes beyond choice when the smoke with which one > is killing themselves also starts killing others. It's killing me after > smoking for 30 years until 17 years ago. > > Minneapolis and other cities license bars and other facilities serving liquor > because what they sell is a danger to public health when consumed in > quantities other than moderate - either by addiction, by driving or > destruction of human tissue - like brains and livers. > > I'm no teetotaler (although in recovery). I have no quarrel with alcohol > consumption generally, but its manufacture and sales are highly regulated. > > Nicotine is far more addictive - even inhaled secondarily - and it kills - > period. Not now, perhaps, but later. It destroys the lungs and hearts of those > who choose - or are forced to breathe it instead of clean, oxygenated air. It > is actually more dangerous than alcohol, but alcohol only kills non-users when > the drunk runs into someone or kills/assaults family and friends when under > its influence. > > We regulate alcohol, forbidding it for children or treating diseased addicts > who ruin their lives. We barely regulate smoking which kills not only its > users, but everyone around them. > > Smoke fills ALL the air available to it and is far more intrusive on the world > of others than any other aspect of our lives. > > Minneapolis and St. Paul should ban it from all public accommodations as well > as public buildings. > > Andy > >> From: phaedrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:10:27 -0800 (PST) >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [Mpls] smoke-free Minneapolis campaign? Please don't go there! >> >>> After the smoke clears from the election, I am wondering if anyone thinks >>> that there could be interest in a smoke-free Minneapolis campaign. >>> >> There may be interest, but I strongly oppose this idea. Government buildings >> and other public spaces that need to be accessable to everyone should be >> (and are) non smoking. Privately owned businesses should be allowed to >> decide for themselves whether or not they wish to be smoking, non smoking, >> or zoned. >> >> I've got a friend who is a fairly rabid right winger. We tend to disagree a >> lot, but I can see how concepts like this are the sort of thing that trigger >> his libertarian oriented fears. >> >> Here's an excerpt from his song "Socialism Slavery": >> >> "I can hear them come marching They come to kick down my door Just because I >> was smoking In a house with a baby next door" >> >> If liberals and progressives want the "right" to take their suggestions >> regarding social services and the environment seriously, they need to stay >> out of private businesses and people's personal lives. >> >>> California's public health policy was based on the premise that employees >>> should not have to risk second hand smoke damage to their health as a >>> condition of employment. >>> >> It is the best argument I've heard put forth for the concept, but it still >> doesn't fly. Employees choose where they work. If they don't want to work >> for a place that has smoking, they shouldn't do so. >> >> If they want to have their place of work go non-smoking, they should >> organize and convince management to do so. >> >> If no one wants to work at a place that has smoking, those places are going >> to have to pay higher salaries or go out of business. I'd imagine >> non-smoking businesses could make a case to health insurance providers to >> reduce their costs as well. >> >> That's how the free market's supposed to work, anyway. >> >>> Of course, most of us who don't smoke would greatly enjoy being able to hear >>> music and go dancing without inhaling second hand smoke as well. >>> >> You should have a right to do so, but those of us who like smokey blues bars >> and irish pubs should have a right to enjoy those as well. >> >>> It has always amazed me why bars don't try this policy voluntarily given the >>> number of people who do >>> >>> not go out because of people blowing "exhaust fumes" in their face. >>> >> This, to me, is the crux of the matter and the right approach. >> >> If a bar, coffee house, or club wants to go non smoking, they should do so >> and market themselves to people who want to go to smoke free environments. >> If there are enough people who go there, the business will succeed. If the >> business has other merits as well, it's likely that even smokers will also >> attend. >> >> There are also places like Cahoots in St. Paul that has a non-smoking front >> room, a smoking backroom and a big steel door and a hallway seperating the >> two. The barrista is located in the non-smoking room. >> >> If your complaint is that there aren't any (or enough) non smoking venues, >> you're probably not alone. Sounds like a good business opportunity to me, >> good luck on it! I've got some friends who will want to know about the >> opening. >> >> In general, this is a subject where people who I generally agree with end up >> looking really bad. It's fascist and totalitarian! What right does anyone >> have to tell a person that they can't go to a privately owned bar and have a >> scotch and a cigar? >> >> Socialism when it comes to making sure people can eat, be educated, get >> basic housing and health care, etc. is a good thing. >> >> Socialism when it comes to over-controlling private businesses and telling >> individuals what choices they can and can not make is a bad thing. >> >> Free markets and freedom of choice for me, thanks. >> >> - Jason Goray, Sheridan, NE Having a hard time picturing Hard Times, >> Halftime Rec, or Ground Zero w/o the haze. >> >> >> __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - >> Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ >> _______________________________________ >> >> Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy >> Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, >> and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls >> _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
