Jim Bernstein wrote: When did smoking become a "human right"? In fact, there is no such thing as "smokers rights" so lets not elevate this "nasty habit" to the status of a basic human right!
Mark Anderson replies: I always thought that how you lived your own life was your own business. Rights are not a limited number of activities one is allowed to do. I was taught that people have the right to do whatever they wish, as long as it doesn't impugn on the rights of someone else. It's true we seem to have gotten away from that concept; nowadays rights seem to consist of only those enumerated in the First Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Any other activity is fair game to be legislated away anytime the political elite decides they don't like it. I'm not saying here that smokers have constitutional or other legal rights. It is ethical rights I'm referring to. Everyone has the right to live their own life. I know that your response will be that second hand smoke does impugn on the rights of others. But this proposed law is not to allow non-smoking bars to exist; they already do. The law is to ban smoking in all bars, even if everyone in the bar wants to smoke. The law would benefit people who want more choices on where to drink unimpeded by smoke, at the expense of those who want to smoke while drinking in a bar (anywhere!). Certainly the anti-smokers have better health on their side, but I don't see why that gives them the right to force their choices on everyone. That way lays totalitarianism -- we all need to fit into politically correct boxes. JB: The comparison to drinking alcohol doesn't work; there is no pollutant from that drink that affects the health of anyone else but the drinker. The idea that restricting smoking is a prelude to banning certain foods like ice cream is also flawed; one can consume as much ice cream as one likes without affecting the health of anyone else. We do not allow the drinker or the ice cream eater to dispose of the residue of their activity on the person next to them. Next time you indulge, try throwing that drink or a glob of ice cream in the face of the person sitting next to you or at the next table over. I suspect that the reaction of the recipient will be . . . impolite? Yet non-smokers who do not wish to consume tobacco smoke are required to suffer or leave. MA: Statistically speaking, drinking of alcohol will result in more assaults on fellow bar patrons, not to speak of the bad effects once they leave the bar, such as increased spousal abuse and car accidents. Those who don't want to take that risk must suffer or leave. Even ice cream will affect others unfavorably, as fat people take up more room in buses and planes, as well as cause an increase in medical expenses. I'm sure all these arguments will be used in the future to eat away at our rights to consume what we want. But as long as the smoking ban doesn't harm you, what the heck, let's limit some one else's activity, right? The principle that the community can (and should) take away people's rights because an activity MIGHT occasionally hurt an innocent really scares me. Go ahead and tell me why we shouldn't completely ban cigarettes, alcohol, sugar, pain medication, professional sports, and traveling for pleasure, based on the principle that the community has the obligation to save us from any activities that could affect a third party. JB: The argument that people who work in places where smoking occurs should not be protected because they are not "forced to work there" is no argument at all. Most places of business whether they are mines, airplanes, factories, breweries, offices, schools, or farms have rules in place to protect the workers in those places. No one is forced to work there either, but common sense has prevailed and we do our best to protect the people who work there and use those services. MA: Poor analogies. Banning smoking in bars is more analogous to laws that would force cars at NASCAR to slow down because it endangers the drivers and other workers on the racetrack. Or force guides of mountain climbers or rapids jumpers to do all their guiding as simulations on the computer, because falling off the mountain or drowning in the river is a risk to those workers. I hope I'm not giving you more ideas for legislation. I think few people would favor such laws because everyone has the right to risk life and limb as long as they do it voluntarily. And the workers involved are part of the whole process -- they too have become voluntarily involved in the activity, probably because they are thrill seekers also. I think the same process works for bar workers. There is a whole culture of people that are highly involved with drinking and visiting bars. The vast majority of bar workers are part of that culture, and so have voluntarily agreed to make their living in such an environment. Mark V Anderson Bancroft Neighborhood 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
