om</A>><BR>Content-Type: =20 text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII"<BR><BR>In a message dated 6/20/2004 = 8: 59:23 AM=20 Central Daylight Time, Andy Driscoll <BR>writes:<BR>> > Of =
course,=20 every agency and research institution in the world affirms not=20 <BR>only<BR>the dangerous effects of second-hand smoke, but new = evidence=20 shows that<BR>short-term exposure to relatively small amounts of = smoke=20 is highly toxic to<BR>human health. You may start with the = National=20 Institutes of Health, the<BR>University of Minnesota and the = World=20 Health Organizations of the UN, then<BR>add the American Cancer = Society,=20 Heart Association and the American Lung<BR>Association plus = every =20 pulmonary and oncology organization in the world.<BR><BR>If you = believe you=20 have evidence refuting 60 years of increasingly = solid<BR>research=20 affirming the dangers of second-hand smoke - produce=20 it.<<<BR> <BR>Actually Andy, that's not the way the process = works.=20 You are the one who <BR>wants to ban an otherwise legal = activity; thus=20 it's up to you to provide the <BR>evidence which supports your = proposal.=20 <BR> <BR> <BR>There's one little problem: you won't be able=20 to.<BR> <BR>All of the organizations you mentioned base their = arguements=20 on the 1998 WHO <BR>report and the 1993 EPA report. In the case = of the=20 former, the report admits <BR>it finds at very best a weak and=20 statistically insignificant link. With the <BR>EPA report, a = federal=20 judge found that the agency had ignored contrary data to = <BR> produce a=20 report which agreed with the agency's political motivations. In=20 <BR>other words, they cheated.<BR> <BR>So, if you have good = information, produce it. Otherwise, you're free to rant <BR>any = way you=20 like. But don't act as if the weight of scientific evidence is =20 <BR>behind you, because it isn't.<BR> <BR>M. G.=20 = Stinnett<BR>Jordan<BR><BR><BR>------------------------------<BR><BR>Messa= ge:=20 13<BR>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:06:53 -0500<BR>From: "Michael = Atherton" <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>><BR>Subject: = RE: [Mpls]=20 Smoking Ban Info: Two Super Resources<BR>To: "'Minneapolis Issues'" = <<A=20 = href=3D"mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>><BR>Message-ID: = <<A=20 = href=3D"000001c4572c$0b4a6920$d3f86580@michael"">mailto:000001c4572c$0b4a6920$d3f86580@michael";>000001c4572c$0b4a6= 920$d3f86580@michael</A>><BR>Content-Type:=20 text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII"<BR><BR><BR>I'd like to apologize in = advance for=20 repeating some <BR>old arguments, but I think that they're important = <BR>and=20 are either being sidestepped or ignored.<BR><BR>Andy Driscoll=20 wrote:<BR><BR>> This focus on rights and privileges vs. public = health is=20 <BR>> getting very old.<BR><BR>Well the debate on rights vs. = government=20 intrusion is <BR>very old, more than two hundred and fifty years in = this=20 <BR>country. What would Americans of the 16th century = have<BR>thought if=20 the British had tried to ban the public use of <BR>tobacco when they = were so=20 irritated by the price of tea?<BR><BR>> We regulate all sorts of = behavior=20 to protect the public <BR>> health, behavior that many see as their = inalienable right <BR>> - personal or commercial, but that has not = stopped=20 wise <BR>> policymakers elsewhere from seeing the larger = picture,<BR>>=20 let alone their official responsibility. It is what the <BR>> = public=20 interest is about.<BR><BR>It's true that our government has regulated = all=20 kinds<BR>of behavior. Some of these restrictions have unjustly = <BR>prohibited=20 or legitimatized various practices: slavery, <BR>women's suffrage, = interracial=20 marriage, intra-gender <BR>marriage...etc, etc, etc.<BR><BR>Many of = these=20 issues could be addressed more equitable<BR>if the Framers had = maintained the=20 belief expressed<BR>in the Declaration that all individuals are = endowed with=20 <BR>the unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the <BR>pursuit of=20 Happiness.<BR><BR>I don't think that we need an Amendment "banning" = gay=20 marriage; <BR>I think that we need an Amendment protecting = personal=20 decisions <BR>related to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.=20 <BR> <BR>> Smoking, though legal, is NOT an inalienable = right,=20 <BR>> especially when, like drunk driving, it's a choice that = <BR>>=20 harms others.<BR><BR>I would argue that smoking which doesn't impact=20 other<BR>people is an inalienable right as stated in the = Declaration.<BR>I=20 believe that consenting adults should be able to gather<BR>together in = public=20 places and smoke (or whatever) as long as <BR>it doesn't impact others = who are=20 not forced to be in their <BR>presence. I will readily admit that such = a right=20 does not <BR>currently exist, but there are also currently laws in = Minnesota=20 <BR>prohibiting sex outside of marriage, adultery, and=20 sodomy.<BR><BR>Interestingly, my position would prohibit smoking=20 on<BR>Nicollet Ave, or outside of doorways, and in any = business<BR>that=20 decided that it wanted to prohibit smoking. It would<BR>permit = smoking=20 in rooms designed to limit exposure or in<BR>establishments that are, = by=20 declaration, designed to serve <BR>smokers.<BR><BR>> Stop it now. = This=20 discussion about rights and <BR>> responsibilities is so obvious on = its=20 face that all <BR>> the libertarian and civil rights issues are=20 overwhelmed<BR>> by the public health evidence, whether you wish to = believe=20 <BR>> that evidence or not for your own purposes or = agenda.<BR><BR>Excuse=20 me, but what bearing does public health <BR>have on an adult's = decision to=20 partake of a behavior<BR>that has no impact on others? What = moral basis=20 allows<BR>you to restrict the behavior of other adults when = that<BR>behavior=20 has no impact on you or anyone else (other than <BR>consenting=20 adults)?<BR><BR>> Comparing yourself to protected classes of color, = religion <BR>> and sexual orientation strikes me as disingenuous in = the=20 extreme.<BR><BR>Although race and sexual orientation may not be = choices,=20 religion <BR>is. It is just as offensive to me to limit other = individual=20 choices <BR>simply because you don't like them or don't understand=20 them.<BR><BR>> I submit that smoke-delivered nicotine should be = illegal to=20 consume <BR>> in the presence of anyone else, including one's own = children,=20 but that's <BR>> an issue for yet another day. <BR><BR>I actually = agree=20 with this statement (if the others are not = consenting<BR>adults).<BR><BR>>=20 As to compromise: there is none and should be none. Compromise on this = <BR>> issue is no compromise at all; it is folly. Compromise is = merely=20 <BR>> selectivity by another name and would result in a far more = complex=20 system <BR>> of political favoritism for those seeking exception to = the=20 rule.<BR><BR>I would agree that until we provide blanket acceptance = for=20 individuals'<BR>personal choices we will have a complex and = inconsistent set=20 of laws.<BR><BR>> Again, once the law starts being selective, it's=20 inherently unfair <BR>> because someone will get the raw end of the = deal.<BR><BR>I couldn't agree more with this statement and the ones = who=20 will<BR>get the raw end of this deal will be smokers.<BR><BR>> = Tobacco is=20 *always* addictive and lethal when used as directed. <BR>> Nicotine = is the=20 most addictive substance on earth, including heroine, <BR>> opium = and=20 cocaine. It's use is predictably lethal with every drag and <BR>> = every=20 breath taken in a room full of it. It usually takes far longer = <BR>> to die=20 from smoking than it does alcohol, which can be immediately <BR>> = lethal=20 when its influence spawns a murder or a DWI fatal accident. <BR>> = But both=20 are deadly.<BR>> <BR>> I'm recovered and recovering from = both.<BR><BR>I=20 can understand the struggle necessary to change = certain<BR>behaviors. I=20 have a great deal of trouble managing my<BR>emotions, but I have been = able to=20 eliminate a number of <BR>addictions from my life. Personally, I = think=20 that relationships<BR>are far more addicting than most substances and = can be=20 even more <BR>deadly and unhealthy. [BTW, I have a foolproof way to = quit=20 <BR>smoking, it just requires two or more obsessively <BR>honorable = people;=20 it's worked for me for thirty years.] <BR>However...I have = little=20 tolerance for people, who because of their <BR>own weaknesses or their = own=20 suffering, need to regulate the <BR>behavior of others.<BR><BR>I would = appreciate it if Mr. Driscoll would explain why<BR>smoking-rooms are = not a=20 reasonable compromise.<BR><BR>Michael Atherton<BR>Prospect=20 = Park<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>------------------------------<BR><BR>_______= ______________________________<BR>Minneapolis=20 Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy<BR>Post messages to: <A=20 href=3D"mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A><BR>Subscribe,=20 Un-subscribe, Digest option, and more:<BR><A=20 = href=3D"http://e-democracy.org/mpls";>http://e-democracy.org/mpls</A><BR><= BR>End=20 of Mpls Digest, Vol 6, Issue=20 30<BR>***********************************</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C45712.4F7AEB20--
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
