(Loki Anderson writes: > [LA] Non-smokers have the option of not patronizing bars and restaurants that they know have poor ventilation or that herd both smokers and non-smokers into the same room. If you don't like the smoking policy of a particular establishment, use your economic clout to hit them in the pocketbook by going somewhere else or by organizing a boycott. Why is it that non-smokers don't want to have purely smoking establishments and non-smoking establishments? > > Loki Anderson > Loki, you make a good point, as have many list members on "both sides" of this discussion.
There is, however, another important dimension to the economics of this. "Big tobacco" has very deep pockets, and the industry has a reputation for doing whatever is needed to get more people addicted and to keep them that way. The public relations programs supposedly aimed at keeping teens off of cigarettes are laughable at best: just more publicity for companies who profit from addicting people to poison. So, while individuals can choose venues for some things, you can bet that the tobacco industry will be looking for entertainers, venues, management, and media who will sell out. If we have smoking and non-smoking venues, won't the tobacco industry will spend all that it can to subsidize smoking venues? Given that we 'muricans are addicted to so many things toxic to ourselves and others, and with little concern for the effects of our actions on people near or far away, it seems to me that smoking is just another everyday form of violence that we take for granted, and that certain big corporations profit greatly from. Limitations on this violence we take for granted as a normal and necessary part of our lives are tough to take, but may help to free us in the long run. Government regulations may simply level the playing field in opposition to the industry which pushes nicotine as acceptable and desirable in as many places as possible, in order to weave the addictive substance from which they profit into our culture as deeply as possible. The most insidious and mundane forms of violence are those which are so much a part of us that we do not recognize them as such. Tucked neatly into the heartland of the empire doesn't "intentional ignorance" rule us completely enough already? Ignoring the negative effects of the tobacco industry, ignoring the record this industry has of "embedding" its addictive product into our lives -- this is not a good approach. On the other hand, I am for the legalization of marijuana. where and how would I recommend that drug be regulated? Like alcohol and tobacco, it may very well have a place in our world, but we do not have a cultural fabric within which to hold it in a positive way. I think banning tobacco gives people the right to light up, but places restrictions on the drug which make most places safer for us all. Maybe....??? I am open to other thoughts, and have been amazed at the considered input of smokers and non-smokers and ex-smokers on this thread. -- pedaling for peace through air filled with carbon tetrachloride, diesel fumes, carbon monoxides, dioxides, ground-level ozone, nitrous oxides, and other yummy stuff from our over-addiction to (overuse of) a certain fossil fuel..... -- Gary Hoover -- Kingfield 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
