I think we should make a clear distinction about the proposed smoking ban. This is not about legislating morality, nor is it about prohibiting people from trying to be happy.
The point of the ban, as I understand it, is to allow everyone to be able to go to a variety of venues, bars, and restaurants and breathe safely. "Public health" is a bit different from "legislating morality." Allowing some entertainment venues, eateries and drinkeries to obtain "smoking permits" may indeed by a viable compromise, except that it does prevent many nonsmokers from pursuing happiness if their favorite band is playing at a smoking joint. The smoking ban is not, ultimately about "a right for some to smoke anywhere" but rather it is about "a right for all to breathe non-toxic air everywhere". I do think, also, that this discussion does not take place in a vacuum, or apart from the powerful influence of the tobacco industry. That influence alone weakens the argument that this is a libertarian issue for smokers. If one wants to be sucked into being a pawn or a toady for big tobacco, that is one thing. If one wants to smoke whenever or wherever one pleases, then there is no real moral, ethical, social, or political justification to use as a veil (dare I say smokescreen?) -- one simply wants to smoke at will. It would be good for folks to acknowledge that up front, rather than to disguise the argument with references to "smokers rights" or to non-smokers or anti-smokers "legislating morality." These arguments may be good spin for a while, but simply cloud the issue, so to speak. The tobacco industry will spend plenty of money to find ways to subsidize entertainment venues, bars, or eating establishments who obtain smoking permits or licensing. To believe that this discussion can take place apart from the interactions of such a proven toxic industry with local business and politics is absurd -- another form of intentional ignorance. We should all be clear about the essential, undiluted matter at hand, and our political representatives need to make decisions for the common good regarding the right to breathe nontoxic air. There may be other ways to address this than a "ban" of some sort. High tech, sealed "smoking bubbles" or smoke domes could be put in place for smokers or some such thing. As long as the airlock works and the HVAC system is set up so that no smoke re-enters the rest of the place, it seems to me that such arrangements could work. Not ideal? Perhaps the tobacco industry could research ways to make such things workable, fun, glitzy, and cool. Back to the point: this is about public health, and the right of all of us to be free from the violence of toxic air. Certainly there are more issues to consider -- toxic air outdoors is created by all of us -- especially, for example, as we consume coal-generated electricity and drive fossil-fuel-burning cars. Smokers are not alone, and represent a tiny tip of the iceberg. We can bet that the fossil fuel industries will, like the tobacco industry, spin and spin to protect short-term profit. So, smokers, take heart. We all have more in common than we have separating us. Will we move on from cleaning up "second-hand" tobacco smoke to dealing with our greater, more commonly held addictions? Such a step will be vastly more important and vastly more difficult! -- pedaling alongside, occasionally flatulent, but trying not to be rude..... Gary Hoover, Kingfield 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
