I'd like to apologize in advance for repeating some old arguments, but I think that they're important and are either being sidestepped or ignored.
Andy Driscoll wrote: > This focus on rights and privileges vs. public health is > getting very old. Well the debate on rights vs. government intrusion is very old, more than two hundred and fifty years in this country. What would Americans of the 16th century have thought if the British had tried to ban the public use of tobacco when they were so irritated by the price of tea? > We regulate all sorts of behavior to protect the public > health, behavior that many see as their inalienable right > - personal or commercial, but that has not stopped wise > policymakers elsewhere from seeing the larger picture, > let alone their official responsibility. It is what the > public interest is about. It's true that our government has regulated all kinds of behavior. Some of these restrictions have unjustly prohibited or legitimatized various practices: slavery, women's suffrage, interracial marriage, intra-gender marriage...etc, etc, etc. Many of these issues could be addressed more equitable if the Framers had maintained the belief expressed in the Declaration that all individuals are endowed with the unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I don't think that we need an Amendment "banning" gay marriage; I think that we need an Amendment protecting personal decisions related to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. > Smoking, though legal, is NOT an inalienable right, > especially when, like drunk driving, it's a choice that > harms others. I would argue that smoking which doesn't impact other people is an inalienable right as stated in the Declaration. I believe that consenting adults should be able to gather together in public places and smoke (or whatever) as long as it doesn't impact others who are not forced to be in their presence. I will readily admit that such a right does not currently exist, but there are also currently laws in Minnesota prohibiting sex outside of marriage, adultery, and sodomy. Interestingly, my position would prohibit smoking on Nicollet Ave, or outside of doorways, and in any business that decided that it wanted to prohibit smoking. It would permit smoking in rooms designed to limit exposure or in establishments that are, by declaration, designed to serve smokers. > Stop it now. This discussion about rights and > responsibilities is so obvious on its face that all > the libertarian and civil rights issues are overwhelmed > by the public health evidence, whether you wish to believe > that evidence or not for your own purposes or agenda. Excuse me, but what bearing does public health have on an adult's decision to partake of a behavior that has no impact on others? What moral basis allows you to restrict the behavior of other adults when that behavior has no impact on you or anyone else (other than consenting adults)? > Comparing yourself to protected classes of color, religion > and sexual orientation strikes me as disingenuous in the extreme. Although race and sexual orientation may not be choices, religion is. It is just as offensive to me to limit other individual choices simply because you don't like them or don't understand them. > 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. I actually agree with this statement (if the others are not consenting adults). > 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. I would agree that until we provide blanket acceptance for individuals' personal choices we will have a complex and inconsistent set of laws. > Again, once the law starts being selective, it's inherently unfair > because someone will get the raw end of the deal. I couldn't agree more with this statement and the ones who will get the raw end of this deal will be smokers. > Tobacco is *always* addictive and lethal when used as directed. > Nicotine is the most addictive substance on earth, including heroine, > opium and cocaine. It's use is predictably lethal with every drag and > every breath taken in a room full of it. It usually takes far longer > to die from smoking than it does alcohol, which can be immediately > lethal when its influence spawns a murder or a DWI fatal accident. > But both are deadly. > > I'm recovered and recovering from both. I can understand the struggle necessary to change certain behaviors. I have a great deal of trouble managing my emotions, but I have been able to eliminate a number of addictions from my life. Personally, I think that relationships are far more addicting than most substances and can be even more deadly and unhealthy. [BTW, I have a foolproof way to quit smoking, it just requires two or more obsessively honorable people; it's worked for me for thirty years.] However...I have little tolerance for people, who because of their own weaknesses or their own suffering, need to regulate the behavior of others. I would appreciate it if Mr. Driscoll would explain why smoking-rooms are not a reasonable compromise. 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
