On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 12:02, Andy Driscoll wrote: > But the beverage association - a front for tobacco companies in this > matter - has had the good fortune to have both money and a > disproportionate voice in these deliberations already.
Disproportionate to what? People who have nothing invested in the businesses which will be affected by this regulation? > Do not be fooled by civil rights arguments Why? Civil rights are not important? The very notion of rights is no longer applicable when vague threats of "public safety" are at issue? > If you can't serve dirty water, contaminated food or drinks, filthy > floors and storage areas, you shouldn't be able to have foul air as > the source of breathing in those same places. Have you ever met anyone who wants to eat in restaurants that serve dirty water, contaminated foodstuffs and which keeps goods in filthy condition prior to service? Next question: have you ever met anyone who wants to smoke while they have a drink? > Let's repeat again to ourselves: Isn't that more like "Let's repeat ourselves ad nauseam until the other side gives up"? Why does this "debate" remind me of the stadium funding issue? > Alcohol - the other addictive substance in these places - is sold in > far greater quantities when smokers are drinking and smoking. Do you have any evidence that there is any sort of causation at work here or are you just guessing? Isn't it likely that people who feel the need to self-medicate are just more likely to self-medicate, often with whatever might be available and socially acceptable? > Bar owners using smoking to increase liquor sales are as > disingenuously self-serving as any major polluter who fights any > attempt to stifle profits over the children and public health. How can you compare someone who provides a private and enclosed space at their own expense in which none of us are required to spend time to someone who dumps toxins into the air and water which we all must use and which rightfully belong to society as a whole? > Smoking encourages drinking which encourages more smoking and so > forth. Do you have any evidence of this at all? Do you not know smokers who do not drink or drinkers who do not smoke? Am I the only one who knows folks who are either smokers OR drinkers, but not the other? > We subordinate "rights" to the public interest all the time. This is, > repeat, among the more obvious of reasons to put whatever "rights" > people believe smokers and bar owners have to serve the public health. We might do it "all the time", but does regularity make it a good habit? We not also have a "Bill of Rights"-- did they pass a countervailing "Bill of Public Health" when I wasn't watching? > No exceptions. No smoking rooms. No nothing but a ban. Your way or the highway, huh? Isn't it possible there is some sort of compromise that might be worthwhile to protect the rights of the individuals involved, as well as make some progress on this issue without it being an all-or-nothing battle? - Michael C. Libby, Cleveland Neighborhood. 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
