I'm new to this list, so please forgive my ignorance of prior posts on
this topic.
I'm concerned about posts positing control of second hand smoke via "the
market." The market needs help from the government (us) when it comes to
regulating or controlling destructive human behavior. Folks have said HVAC systems
to control air contaminants are expensive and unreliable, but to suggest that
this expense is the only market limit is false; as Phyllis Kahn pointed out
in reference to Barb Lickness's comments on the Clean Indoor Air Act, the
so-called "unenforceable law" has worked quite well over the years primarily due to
expectations of the publicâthis in itself is a market force and suggests
other limits.
I oppose the ban as I oppose many prohibitions of specific human
behaviors, not because smoking tobacco is not dangerous, but because it isn't worth
the expense to protect folks from this danger to me, at least with a ban. I
don't believe in enforcement against social behaviors, good or bad. I believe in
good sound education, good sound individual judgments, and choice. The hoopla
over the local smoking ban ordinances statewide serve to educate, and I have
learned that they are the wrong way to go.
The right way to use the market is to let bar and restaurant owners and
their patrons do whatever they want within the present law with one
exceptionâthey must choose smoking or no and they must let potential patrons know
this
in an unmistakable way. Municipal permits for smoking establishments as s
uggested in earlier posts seem too expensive to me. As a transplant from Los
Angeles, California (I'd say go Lakers, but I never was a big fan; Bruins were
different), Proposition 65 comes to mind: this initiative requires notifying
visitors and employees of any dangerous materials or substances used in a given
facility and you can't miss these notices all over the state in prominent
locations. If I were writing a no smoking ordinance for any business, it would provide
that they post the standard warnings you see on cigarette packages in this
country. Proprietors could choose the smoking, drinking, or whatever warning and
indicate what substance is used or activity goes on that might be a danger to
a patron or bystander for whatever reasonâthat is how to let the market
control the problem without a great deal of expense or hoopla to the public. Cities
can zone the businesses with the offensive products or activities just as they
do now. No expensive control technology is required. Patronize a business, or
not.
If these bans pass, they should be vetoed. The way to stamp out smoking
is to keep people from lighting up and separate, both physically and
economically, smokers in the act from nonsmokers. Smokers will die out and not cost
anyone anything if we just let them suffer all the consequences of their acts
alone; the same is true of business establishments that cater to them.
Bill Kahn
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
