I think that this issue is basically about violence. Smoking may benefit some people in some ways (soothes jangled nerves, helps with weight loss for many, etc) but it also does violence to users and to others as well.
Prohibition of this form of violence in public places or in bars, restaurants, and clubs is a double-edged sword. Banning smoking has benefits (mostly health benefits -- a pretty basic thing) and also drawbacks. The drawbacks are that a significant minority of people are coerced into changing something that they feel to be a basic part of their own lifestyle, in spite of the risks it poses to themselves and others. Our nation is arguably the most brutal, death-dealing empire in the history of our species. Smoking -- this simple form of violence many hold so dear -- is not unlike our broader addiction to fossil fuels, which is far more pervasive, violent and damaging. Denial runs rampant, of course. We have a ready excuse or rationalization for every comfortable, comforting form of violence we hold dear and feel that we cannot live without. Our political system is stacked solidly against making any changes with regard to even the most simple forms of violence we practice. Any politician voting for a smoking ban will face some angry constituents and -- far more importantly -- angry industry with deep pockets and profiteering sociopathic myopia. Tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana are all drugs which have been in use for centuries. They may be held with enough respect that their use is more beneficial than damaging. The so-called free market (which if course is not free at all) cannot respond to ethical or moral concerns, and will only externalize the costs of any addictive product -- even of fossil fuels -- so that maximum profit may be accrued as swiftly as possible. Real costs of abuse of tobacco, alcohol, and even fossil fuels are buried and denied so as to enable continued abuse. Such costs are denied no matter how extreme or obvious. That is how addiction works. Public health is a fundamental concern. It seems to me that public health takes precedence over our dearly held addictions, painful though that may be. I would like to see the smoking ban enacted statewide. In today's political climate a citywide ban is sure to bring about unreasoned backlash and corporate retaliation. Even so, it may be a painful and needed step along the way to recovery from this particular form of comfortable violence. I would like to see our city leadership -- and media -- be so bold as to address our far more pervasive form of violence: our addiction to a petroleum-based transportation monoculture. By the time the so-called free market "hits bottom" with this addiction, it will be too late for any kind of recovery. While city, county, and state political leadership piss away the time with dinosaurs like professional sports stadiums, most of the crucial issues of our day are not even recognized -- let alone discussed -- in the political arena. Voltaire sums it up well: "As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities." That pretty well sums up "the American way of life" as lived in Minneapolis. "Intentional ignorance" is bedrock for our addictive denials. Perhaps the "Smoking Ban" is one step along the way to recovery? -- Gary Hoover -- pedaling for peace, breathing secondhand smoke from cigs and cars 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
