On 5/30/04 7:42 PM, "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Krasnoff's comparison of HIV being spread through gay sex to >> secondhand smoke is just as disingenuous as Atherton's comparison >> of a smoking ban to the numerous other "moral decisions" he listed. > > As Mr. Krasnoff clarified, his point is that gay sex IS a > public health matter. I would agree (of course so is straight sex). > > A moral decision: relates to principles of right and wrong in behavior; > expresses or teaches a conception of right behavior, and refers to > some standard of right behavior. All of the behaviors I listed > implicitly involve an assumption of "right" or acceptable behavior > or they wouldn't be socially acceptable. I don't know where people > get off suggesting that their political views are not moral decisions. I don't recall suggesting that my political views are not moral decisions. I simply think Mr. Atherton's comparative examples of: "Network Television, McDonald's, Bowling, Golf, Spectator Sports, Gay sex, Christianity, etc." Are lousy ones. An Mr. Atherton himself gives the reason why: "But, people's participation in these activities doesn't really have much impact on what I do or don't do" You cannot say the same for secondhand smoke. As for what if businesses ensure that others' health is not endangered, I suppose that would be an acceptable compromise in my eyes. So long as City Council adopted the same standards for bars and restaurants that public buildings are held to under the state Clean Indoor Air Act. As I've stated previously, I would bet most establishments would choose to ban smoking rather than invest in the ventilation upgrades and other renovations needed to comply. Which would leave the few remaining holdouts not only paying through the nose for all those renovations, but also for the licensing fees required to cover the city's administrative costs of the inspector and database upgrades that would be needed. I read recently in the Minneapolis Observer that there's something like 500 bars and restaurants with liquor licenses. How many of those do people think would continue to promote smoking in their establishments given the costs outlined above? How many would need to before it makes more sense from a cost/benefit standpoint to just institute a smoking ban rather than run a licensing program for what could be just a handful of establishments? 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
