The more I see smokers' rights denounced either implicitly or explicitly in this forum, the more I wonder why such rights are so easily dismissed. Like most guilt-ridden smokers, i've been undone by the attacks and too discouraged to attack back. For one thing, I'm not much of an attacker, but I've also lost track of the fact that I am part of a minority estimated to comprise 20 -30% of the population. Wouldn't most of you call that fairly substantial? According to the 2000 Census, 20% is the equivalent of the US population over age 55 - that's ALL age groups over 55. Since the Boom began with my birth year, I can tell you that the first 3 years of boomers are now over 55, so there are a good many of us. The percentage of the population who are GLBT is tougher to estimate, but racial minorities are easier: if smokers comprise 25% of the population, that's equal to the total number of African Americans and Hispanics combined. In terms of numbers, we are not negligible. And in terms of moral turpitude, we are not criminals. We have been dutifully obeying the law. Now some people believe the law is not restrictive enough, and we are decried as willfully, selfishly and heedlessly blowing smoke in the faces of helpless victims. We have been compared to drunk drivers, who ARE in fact willful, selfish and heedless. Their behavior is also against the law. The comparison is slanderous. Smokers are not violating the law because we are not intentionally abusing a legal substance such that we menace others. If it is determined that the legal substance we use does menace others in whatever quantity and wherever used, why is that substance not outlawed?
A compromise has been crafted that permits smoking in designated areas of certain establishments. No one is required to patronize those establishments. Presumably some workers feel endangered by the smoke in their workplace, but they are not the complainants who have brought forward the demand that all buildings open to the public be smokefree. Just as I cannot apply for a job that requires lifting over 25 pounds, those workers are free to apply at non-smoking establishments which do, in fact, already flourish. Or they can decide to develop different skills, just as I accepted my inability to be a firefighter. What frustrates me about this whole debate is that the anti-smokers are unwilling to compromise in any way. They are unwilling to discuss improved ventilation because they believe a whiff of smoke is too much. They insist on a total ban everywhere, even in private clubs. Why? Because the bans in Duluth and Olmsted County permit smoking in bars and bars are their real interest? Because live music is the real driver behind this movement? What if nightclubs agreed to permit smoking on Fridays and prohibit smoking on Saturdays? What if the owners of some of the clubs could be persuaded to go smokefree entirely? A number of ideas have been floated, but none gets attention. The discussion has centered on two populations: non-smokers and owners of bars and restaurants (backed by the invisible Big Tobacco). These two populations are apparently happy to agree if they can impose the ban on the entire state. But what of the third set of interests which is being gnored - would the interests of any other minority be so lightly dismissed? Gail O'Hare St. Paul 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
