Short of a ban, no business that allows smoking can protect employees from second-hand smoke.
Libertarians want no "government" intrusion into private lives. "Government" is us. We are the government. That is the truism that separates us from many other systems, including the dictatorships the current administration is committed to supplanting with "our" form of "democracy." I won't go there on this list, except to note irony in this argument against "government" - which, in a democratic republic, is representative of the majority of those voting. If you believe in democracy, you'd best believe, too, that public policy and the responsibility for protecting the public health and safety of all citizens, not just those who "choose" certain behaviors that threaten the public health and/or safety is precisely the role of the government we elect. If you choose to open a business to the public at-large, you're licensed to protect that public from diseases growing out of your patrons - human waste, cooked and raw food, storage facilities, dispensing equipment, electrical codes, plumbing codes. It's all subject to inspection and citation for violations. The air is no different from anything we eat or drink, whether its pollution comes from owners or customers. It's up to government to protect the public from air contamination just as it is from contaminated food and water when public accommodations "choose" not to do it themselves. Air, water, food and drink is no different from traffic control, where traffic signs and laws and rules govern our behavior so those who "choose" to ignore the public health and safety by their operation of vehicles are cited for violations, sometimes jailed. We are a city, a state and a nation of laws which keep order and protects us - sometimes from our human failings. You want anarchy? Go somewhere else. Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 Saint Paul ------ on 5/17/04 5:08 PM, Michael Atherton wrote: > > Gary Hoover wrote: > >> The hue and cry comes from the fear of those who are addicted >> and/or those who make a living in great part by making their >> establishments hospitable to a particular polluting addiction >> -- and this is understandable. Even so, it is at best uninformed >> or flawed thinking to call a ban "government intrusion" when we >> expect governmnet to protect us from bad food-handling practices >> or a variety of workplace hazards. > > I believe that an ordinance prohibiting cigarette smoking from > business establishments in the city is indeed government intrusion. > I hope and expect my government to protect me from hazards that > are not obvious or clearly identified: bad meat, tornados, > criminals, riptides, etc. I do not want my government to protect > me from hazards that I might *choose* to partake of: mountain > climbing, motorcycle riding, tornado chasing, drug use, etc. > > Rather than a ban, the City should require businesses, that want > to allow individuals to smoke in their establishments, to insure > that employees and non-smokers are not affected by secondhand > smoke. If the City did there would be no need for a "ban." > >> A ban seems like a better, cleaner policy to me. Any steps toward >> addressing this difficult, dear little form of violence would >> be positive. > > A ban seems to be a better and cleaner policy to you because > they are not intruding on *your* pursuit of happiness. I'm > sure that government could always find something to protect > you from; bicycle riding for instance. Bicycling riding in > city traffic is extremely dangerous. How can the City in > good conscience allow individuals to propel their bodies > along downtown streets at speeds of up to 25 miles an hour > without any of the protections and safety devices required for > automobiles? Do you know how many children are seriously hurt > or killing in bicycle accidents each year!? My God, it's > horrendous! Ban Bicycles! > >> We got into these messes larley by naive and ignorant >> accident. We can only get out of them with wise, informed >> intention. I guess that is often how addiction works. > > That's not true at all. How many heroin users are > na�ve and ignorant of the downsides of drug addiction? > People take risks, many of us enjoy taking risks. We > don't need governments to protect us from ourselves, we > have religion for that. I just don't want your *religious* > convictions protecting me, thank you very much. > > Michael Atherton > Prospect 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
