On 5/13/04 10:19 AM, "Aaron Klemz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RIGHTS AND NONSENSE > > 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.
I'll agree that the question is how do we find a balance. And to that end, I think it's worthwhile to examine precedents. Mr. Klemz notes: "The rights of workers are not absolute: no regulation or law requires that the risk to workers in any industry be zero." Certainly true - yet we've banned smoking in practically every other work place, including on planes, buses and in theatres, where the majority of the smoke would come from customers and not fellow employees. What's the difference here? Here's an interesting tidbit that showed up in the Strib shortly after the ban was proposed for St. Paul: ________ St. Paul smoking ban: Where there's smoke, there's ire Josephine Marcotty, Star Tribune May 9, 2004 http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4765684.html In public opinion surveys, mostly commissioned by anti-tobacco groups, people have expressed similar sentiments. In 2002, the Minnesota Smoke-Free Coalition, a nonprofit supported by many health care institutions, found that 79 percent of the more than 800 Minnesotans surveyed supported laws to ban smoking in workplaces, public buildings and restaurants. However, a smaller share -- 46 percent -- supported smoking bans in bars. ________ What I find interesting about this is that the vast majority of those polled appear to favor smoking bans in workplaces. Unfortunately, many of them failed to recognize that bars are workplaces too. > 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. I'm sorry, but to me, this "BIG PICTURE" is little more than a red herring. For those not familiar with the term, a red herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. In this case, the idea is to diminish the concerns about secondhand smoke by comparing to other forms of pollution and subtly suggesting that pro-ban advocates should direct their attentions elsewhere. First of all, the fact that there are other forms of pollution does nothing to diminish concerns about secondhand smoke exposure any more than the fact that we have muggings in this city should diminish anyone's concerns about vandalism. Secondly, it's interesting that the example of Xcel-Riverside was brought up, since several of the Minneapolis council members who have stated support for the smoking ban also strongly supported the proposal to clean up Xcel-Riverside. And one of them, Zimmermann, rides a bicycle to work to further reduce his personal contribution to air pollution. > 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 is an interesting critique coming from someone who earlier stated: "When advocates of a smoking ban argue that the evidence to the contrary is "anecdotal," what they are really saying is that there will be winners and losers, and the losers should stop whining. This is eerily reminiscent of our current discourse on outsourcing." Is anyone familiar with the saying: "the pot calling the kettle black" because apparently Mr. Klemz isn't. Given that my earlier question about how we might actually do something like "disaggregate the impact of smoking bans from other economic trends" was completely ignored, let's think about it this way: We know that have four times as many non-smokers as smokers. Is it that unreasonable to think that for every smoker who quits bar-hopping in Minneapolis or St. Paul, there's likely at least one or two non-smokers out there who will likely go out more often and pick up the slack? Especially when you consider we have folks like Andy Driscoll or Booker Hodges who presently cannot visit the bars because of respiratory ailments? Or that there are probably a decent number of former smokers who quit the bar scene because they cannot tolerate cigarette smoke anymore or don't want to face the temptation? Or is the thinking that non-smokers are basically a bunch of lame-os who are gonna stay home no matter what and only smokers are cool enough to hang out at the bars? > 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. OK - how would you suggest we do that? > I think that we should avoid really bad arguments, > even if they are in service of a desirable objective. Agreed. And I think people who are going to comment about bad argument styles should follow their own advice... 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
