I edited this one down to the best of my ability. I welcome any education on editing and how to be more concise.
If brevity is the soul of wit, I seem to be in big trouble. Arthur Himmelman said: "I especially like the arguments by those who have evidently lived through repressive forms of socialism/totalitarianism/fascism and can inform us about the smoking restrictions in such regimes." Humor's good. A response in kind: I believe that a "big tobacco" study for an eastern-european nation showed that smoking saved the country money since citizens didn't live as long into retirement. So, I'd have to guess that a socialist fascist/totalitarian regime would encourage their citizens to smoke as much as possible. Perhaps cigarette vending machines in elementary schools? Purely speculation of course. - - - Wendy Introwitz Pareene said "If the idea of freedom to make personal choices is to hold water, health insurance premiums for smokers should be [much higher]" Absolutely! It is unfair to subsidize people who make choices that increase the cost of their health care. Groups like MPAAT should encourage insurers to adjust premiums for smokers appropriately. They should encourage employers to pass those increased costs to smoking employees. Wendy also raised the concern that restaurants and bars are afraid of losing business by going non-smoking. I can look at this a couple ways: Non-smokers and light smokers who don't want to come home reeking should provide a strong enough consumer base to support restaurants and bars that go smoke free. On the other hand, if people really won't go to non-smoking establishments, an ordinance like this would hurt mpls businesses as people would go elsewhere to have fun. I think the Pulse's effort to address this through economic encouragement is highly commendable. - - - Andy Driscoll said: "Socialism Slavery, indeed. Lord, help us if the people actually start controlling their country again." The problem is when people start controlling other people's lives and choices. As socialist ideals move from making sure that everyone gets a certain amount of security to controlling the way they live their lives, it becomes totalitarian. It can go to far, and banning smoking from private businesses does. If you wanted to talk about banning it on public sidewalks that everyone has to use... Andy said: "Employees, especially bar employees, often have no choice as to whether or not they must work in a smoke-filled environment." Yes, they do. I worked for a plastics corp for 2 days in college and the debris in the air was harsh. I quit and got a job at Radio Shack. Bar employees could start their own bar or organize to pressure management to go non-smoking. How about having some of that law suit money used to create forgivable and/or low interest loans for people who want to start non-smoking clubs? Andy said that all retail operations are public accommodations which require no "discrimination over access to their goods and services without danger to health." Should we ban strip clubs because they can be psychologically unfriendly? Ban music venues because they can cause hearing loss? If they're turning women or men or blacks or whites or non-smokers away at the door, then you have a point. From what I recall, Club Ashe allowed non-smokers... As to retail operations being public accommodations, the bar next door may be open to the public, but it is privately owned and operated. The owners can choose to allow smoking and you can choose not to go there. Andy also had a number of points regarding health aspects of smoking. Motorcycling and parachuting are risky. Greasy fast food is hard on my health. There are many examples, and to be blunt, it is my body and my choice. Smoking is bad for health. Every person has the right to make their own decision. Personally, I'd like to quit. Forcing all the places I like to go to be "non smoking" would make my life a LOT easier. However, it is selfish and authoritarian. Andy said: "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." If I'm not mistaken, tobacco is under pretty much the same level of regulations, there are programs for treating diseased addicts, and we forbid it to children. In summary, If you want to pass an ordinance requiring every place that allows smoking to clearly post a sign by the enterance, I'm fine with it. I'd also entertain the idea that places that allow youth and smoking have the smoking areas be 18+. However, do you really think it is unreasonable for a place like Ground Zero to have smoking? Most of the staff smoke, most of the dancers smoke, and the customers choose whether or not to go there. You don't have the right to take that choice away from them - they're not hurting anyone but themselves. Public facilities - as in municipal, state, federal should be non smoking or have accommodations so smokers do not impact non smokers. Publicly subsidized facilities like theatres and art museums should do the same. Private businesses that do not receive public subsidy should be able to choose. - Jason Goray, Sheridan, NE __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 _______________________________________ 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
