Andy Driscoll writes: If you believe you have evidence refuting 60 years of increasingly solid research affirming the dangers of second-hand smoke - produce it.
MG Stinnet: Actually Andy, that's not the way the process works. You are the one who wants to ban an otherwise legal activity; thus it's up to you to provide the evidence which supports your proposal. Me: Though I never wrote it up for publication, my 1984 high school senior science project in Tulsa, Oklahoma, boldly demonstrated how environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) significantly impaired the growth of the common house plant. Too bad I've since lost all that valuable research. In any case, while the burden may be on those proposing a ban to provide evidence for its need, the evidence doesn't have to be irrefutable, beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, compelling, or even indubitably correct. The city council just needs to base its decision on a reasonable basis. And I think most everyone--with perhaps the exception of those who have a conspiratorial mind--would agree that it would be reasonable, for purposes of public health and providing a safe workplace environment, to prohibit ETS in indoor enclosed spaces. You may think it's unreasonable and council members and others are unreasonable for thinking that way, but ce'st la vie at times. Gregory Luce 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
