Given the tone of these responses, I'm almost sorry I
said anything .... well, almost ... :)
It's not that I disagree with the arguments made by
advocates of a smoking ban, it's that I see that folks
are willing to overlook how the arguments that they
make suck. On both sides.
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
The "slippery slope" argument, in it's extreme form,
is a joke. Banning smoking will not lead immediately
to jack booted thugs kicking in the doors of innocent
business owners. The strained attempts to come up with
a "next" prove this point: "next thing you know,
they'll be banning CHAIRS, DRIVING, FATTY FOODS, etc."
Advocates of a smoking ban are happy to point out that
there are a number of other health related regulations
on businesses, and that there is no unfettered right
to operate your business in ways that are illegal or
endanger public health.
However, this is a regulation on MORE than just
business owners. The reaction to the proposal has more
to do with people seeing the government circumscribing
the places that they can engage in otherwise legal
behavior. While this may not lead to slippery slope to
fascism - this proposed regulation is NOT analogous to
other health codes since it is targeted toward the
unhealthy behavior of the patrons (primarily), as
opposed to simply regulating what the ownership can do
with the food or facility.
I think that we can agree that there is a level of
regulation of businesses that is unacceptable. The
question we need to ask ourselves is whether this
regulation crosses that line.
RIGHTS AND NONSENSE
I've hardly ever seen more "rights talk" than this.
* Business owners have a right to operate their
business as they see fit (property rights).
* Smokers have a right to smoke, since it is a legal
activity.
* Non-smokers have a right to breathe clean air.
* Employees of restaurants and bars have a right to a
smoke-free workplace.
Since all of these rights can't be exercised
simultaneously, each side attempts to denigrate the
"rights" of the other.
The reality is that free societies trade off and make
choices about which "rights" weigh more than others.
We've seen a number of such arguments on this list:
"Workers are captive, so their right to breathe clean
air should come first."
"Only 20% of the population smokes, so the rights of
the 80% should outweigh."
"Frequenting a business is voluntary, so the rights of
a business owner to cater to a particular clientele
engaged in legal behavior should take precendence."
These rights claims are difficult to resolve,
especially since none of these rights are absolute:
* The right of business owners to do as they please
are constrained by a host of regulations.
* The right of people to engage in otherwise legal
behavior like smoking is already curtailed (can't
smoke in Public buildings, etc.)
* The rights of workers are not absolute: no
regulation or law requires that the risk to workers in
any industry be zero.
* The right to breathe clean air: well, I'll get to
that in a minute.
So, to me it's not a question of "whose rights?" but
rather a question of how we balance a number of
competing rights claims with some legitimacy.
PERSONAL TESTIMONY AND BIAS
I'm not a smoker. I quit three and a half years ago. I
feel like this "personal testimony" should be
irrelevant, but people on this list and elsewhere have
highlighted personal behavior as relevant. This is
silly on both sides.
The assertion that "only bar owners who smoke care
about this" is crapola. Beyond my own personal
circumstance (I neither smoke, nor own a restaurant or
bar), I think that it should be obvious that there is
room for folks to oppose the ban because of their
suspicion towards heavy handed regulatory actions by
the government. While this suspicion is frequently
operationalized as a bad slippery slope argument, I
don't think that makes it stupid or irrational.
And the "we're the majority, you're the minority"
braying we hear (from Greens for chrissakes) is really
unfortunate, since in any other arena that argument
would be laughable.
The "only opposition is from the tobacco industry"
line being trotted out by Thune and others grossly
inflates their self-importance, as well as unfairly
pillorying citizens who oppose a smoking ban as tools
and rubes.
Equally silly (if not more so) is the assertion that
those advocating the ban are being paid to do so by
some nebulous lobbying effort.
All of these bias accusations obscure the real issue:
why is it that THIS ISSUE allows and ecourages folks
to make arguments that wouldn't fly in any other
discussion?
THE BIG PICTURE
If we want a "right to breathe clean air," then we
ought to start looking hard at our industrial hygiene
rather than our neighbors personal hygiene. The "your
right to swing your fist ends at my nose" cliche fails
miserably since every one of you on this list is
hitting my nose everyday (pollution from cars and
other transportation, water pollution caused by runoff
and seepage, etc.). The notion that there is clean air
left to breathe is romantic, but wrong. This does not
mean that we should pollute the air (in any way) with
impunity - the point is that we all sustain cancer and
heart disease risks by living in an industrial
society, and that this right isn't absolute. It's even
less absolute for the folks who've lived downwind of
Riverside for 40 years.
If we want a reasoned public discussion I think we
should refrain from arguments like the following:
"I don't want anyone to think I am singling out Aaron
with this next comment but I've noticed that many of
the complaints about these studies showing positive
economic impacts seem to be using the same kinds of
arguments (the study was flawed!, etc.) that has been
used by numerous manufacturers to protect their status
quo."
Well, first of all, "the study was flawed" is also an
argument used by opponents of these manufacturers to
dispute the safety claims made by hack studies that
they commisioned.
Second, I raise _questions_ about the studies that
people have unquestioningly trotted out re: economic
impacts and suddenly that's tantamount to the paint
industry saying lead is safe? Tantamount to the
tobacco industry concealing evidence that smoking is
harmful? Whatever.
This tack of argument reminds me of one of my
favorites "you're either with us or you're against
us." Well, I'm neither. I think that we can acheive
the goals of providing smoke-free spaces for people
that want them through less coercive means than a ban.
I think that we should avoid really bad arguments,
even if they are in service of a desirable objective.
I think we need to respect the lives and livelihoods
of people we disagree with, a lot more than "cry me a
river that some bar owner will go out of business."
Well, cry a river for the folks who lose their jobs,
cry a river for folks that lose a piece of their
community if that happens.
Aaron Klemz
Hale
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2'
http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861
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
