On 5/12/04 2:57 PM, "Anderson, Mark V(GE Infrastructure)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 strongly disagree. Cigarette smoke in bars is a lot more analogous to something like solvent fumes in a factory than the speed on a NASCAR track. The whole point of NASCAR racing is to go faster than your competitors. The whole point of mountain climbing is to get to the top. Is the whole point of working in a bar to inhale cigarette smoke? I don't think so. > 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. I've seen this argument a few times now about how "workers are voluntarily involved in the bar culture" as a reason to oppose the smoking ban. I gotta say, as someone who used to work in a video arcade/pool hall where smoking was allowed and who has a sister and several other relatives who have worked as wait staff over the years, that's about the silliest thing I've heard in a while. I suppose there are some smokers or drinkers who choose to work as wait staff or bartenders because they like the culture. But given the lousy working conditions and oftentimes lousy pay, I think there's probably an equal or far larger number of folks who work in such an environment because they have to - they need the money and that's the best job they can find. I sure didn't work at the pool hall because I enjoyed the culture of it, though a lot of the customers were cool. I did it because it was the one job I could find at the time. I most certainly did not enjoy cleaning out ashtrays or picking up cigarette butts. I rarely hung out there when I wasn't working because it was bad enough smelling like a damn chimney after only the first hour on the clock. It sucked and as soon as a better job opportunity came my way, I was gone. On 5/11/04 10:22 PM, "David Brauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Therefore, banning indoor - but not outdoor - smoking is logical if you're > proceeding on public health grounds...and a libertarian one: the right to > swing your fist stops at my face (or in this case, bloodstream). Hear, hear! This same discussion is taking place in another forum where I participate and someone made some comments along this same line of thinking that were so great, I sought and received permission to share them: "An old friend of my parents was asked when we where out at a restaurant by some people sitting at the next table if we minded if they smoked. His response was "So long as you don't mind if I spit in your water." Air is part of the commons and directly impacts the commons for all people. Just as we would not allow a corporation to say that they have a right to pollute the land they own and rivers that run through their property because they are "theirs", we should not allow individuals to toxify the air in the context of a public accommodation where that air is "common" to all present. We have laws banning discrimination on the basis of disability including protection of the right to access public accommodations that require reasonable efforts by the provider of a public accommodation (place of business) to make their space accessible. A smoker's access is not blocked by saying they can't smoke in a particular venue. They can still access the public accommodation and not smoke while in the establishment. Another person's access to public accommodations IS blocked because of allergies to smoke and respiratory ailments exacerbated by smoke. It's not simply a question of having a dislike for smoke. While smokers can choose whether to smoke at a given time and place as appropriate, those whose access is blocked by the presence of lots of second hand smoke cannot choose not to breathe." On 5/12/04 10:39 AM, "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is my argument. If you are correct that it is not technologically > or financially feasible, then offering businesses with permits costs > little or nothing (because no one would be able to meet the necessary > standards). If you are wrong, then why not allow businesses > to accommodate the desires of smokers? Why project your values and > morality on others if they would do no harm? I suppose it is technically feasible to design an HVAC system that would accommodate smokers and non-smokers. But I think the burden is being misplaced. As David said earlier, a smoker's right to smoke stops at the non-smoker's bloodstream. So I think it should be up to the smokers to figure out a way to enjoy their habit without infringing on others. Maybe they could wear portable fume hoods or a space suit or something. But it should be on them to figure out how to do it, not the bar owner or the non-smoker. Lastly, regarding the argument about how we should seek a statewide ban, I agree that would be ideal. But that suggestion ignores the history of how such things tend to come about. For example, the federal emergency planning and community right-to-know law that was passed in 1986 and gives citizens access to information about toxic chemicals used by neighboring industrial facilities had it's origins in several local ordinances to that effect that were passed, such as Cincinnati in 1982. Similar laws were then passed by states and finally there was enough momentum to get something done at the federal level, though it took two tragedies at Union Carbide facilities in India and West Virginia to finally spur Congress to act. More locally, look at the path that the phosphorus in lawn fertilizer restriction has taken. It started with local restrictions in cities like Minneapolis and Plymouth, then was expanded throughout the metro area by the State Legislature a couple years ago and will soon become a statewide restriction if the governor and Legislature manage to salvage anything out of this year's session. By the way, has anyone noticed any huge drop-off in metro-area lawn fertilizer sales since the phosphorus restriction started earlier this year? Just wondering. Mark Snyder Windom Park 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
