Smokers' rights do not exist. There are no inherent "rights" for smokers anywhere. Why smokers believe they possess the inalienable right to smoke, therefore poison others in the process, is beyond me.
If any such right existed, it would dissolve in the offsetting requirement of society to protect the public health as many other perceived "rights" have. It is possible that a "right" to smoke in one's own house could be upheld, but you have no right to smoke anywhere in public where others can breathe it. Oh, it may be legal for the moment, but that doesn't create a "right." We've banned many things we considered legal once and now do not because of their harmful effects. It's all part of an evolving society that cares for its people as it should. Comparing yourself to protected classes of color, religion and sexual orientation strikes me as disingenuous in the extreme. You are not a protected minority by the fact that you smoke. Being Black, being a senior, or being gay, among others, is protected under the Constitution and other statutes because discrimination occurs on the basis of being those things over which a person has no control, none of which which has an adverse effect on others by their very existence. Talk about slanderous. Arrogant is a word I would use when such comparisons are drawn. In fact smokers ARE using an abusive substance which is harmful to others - and it's intentional because you know it's harmful both to you and others and you continue to smoke in the presence of other people whether they smoke or not. All smoking is abuse. It's one thing to abuse your own body, your own health, but, knowing how harmful it is to others makes your abuse of others intentional. I submit that smoke-delivered nicotine should be illegal to consume in the presence of anyone else, including one's own children, but that's an issue for yet another day. Gail and others arrogantly assume because a substance is legal to consume that anyone harmed by it is choosing to be so and have no rights. Now that's the selfish, self-serving posture of an addicted individual if ever I heard one. It is so typical for addicts to any substance to reach irrational conclusions about their mainstream positions such that any look back after recovery from such substance makes us wonder how we ever concluded that by our abuse of a drug, we constituted the same percentages of the population as ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, we therefore deserve the same antidiscrimination deference as the latter. We soon learn just how ridiculous we made our assumptions just to protect our addiction. As to compromise: there is none and should be none. Compromise on this issue is no compromise at all; it is folly. Compromise is merely selectivity by another name and would result in a far more complex system of political favoritism for those seeking exception to the rule. Again, once the law starts being selective, it's inherently unfair because someone will get the raw end of the deal. A blanket ban is the fairest way to go and will result in the least competition and the least litigation when the inevitable challenges are lodged. To suggest that bar and restaurant owners haven't joined tobacco companies in serving the interests of smokers in this debate is to be blind to reality. They want you smoking, and they're defending your ability to do so with plenty of money and pressure. That makes you pretty well represented. But they're only defending your smoking because your smoking makes them millions richer both through cigarette sales and much heavier alcohol sales. It's all about the booze in the bars, not the smoking. If bar owners could be sure of selling as much booze going nonsmoking, they wouldn't care, but Big Tobacco is indeed telling them they'll go belly up if they do. In truth, bar and restaurant owners have made a killing wherever smoking has been banned, despite the lies perpetrated by smoking bar owners in Duluth and elsewhere. The Boston, New York, California, Florida and other experiences with smoking bans have all reported significant revenue and profit increases with concomitant drops in tobacco use. Any other assertion is an out and out lie to fear-monger at the expense of public health. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul -- on 6/19/04 10:58 PM, Gail wrote: > 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
