I don't have much to add to the smoking ban discussion
that I haven't said already, but (partially due to
offlist requests not to silence myself on the issue) I
would like to respond to a few things that keep being
brought up.
# To the statement that the main opposition to the ban
is bar owners and big tobacco or their shills:
I find this relatively offensive. While I wouldn't
mind being a bar owner, I am not one. I find the
suggestion of my affiliation with big tobacco is
tantamount to a personal attack.
To the best of my knowledge, this describes almost
every smoker and non-smoker who has discussed concerns
about or opposition to the ban with me. Of the people
I've met who were vocally against the ban, some
(likely even most) of us smoke. Some of us don't
smoke. Some of us are trying our best to quit. Some of
us are trying half heartedly to quit. All of us
believe that this is just another consensual crime law
that we disagree with in fact and principle.
The continued repetition of this attack keeps nudging
me from reasoned discourse towards angry retort and,
in my opinion, turns the debate into something far
more base. You can question my opinions and challenge
my logic, but when you question my honesty and my
motivations, you offend my honor. If my honor
deserves questioning, then by all means, go ahead. If
not, don't.
If rather than criticizing my beliefs and opinions,
you attack me with no grounds, know that you are
coloring my opinion of you in everything you say
henceforth. When you take this path, you not only
harm yourself and the debate, but you also make it
more difficult for your allies who would try and see
this ban passed without utterly alienating those who
oppose it. Please take the high road.
# To the discussions of percentages of smokers
compared to non-smokers:
First of all, comparing smokers to non-smokers is
irrelevant to the ban. Not all non-smokers support
the ban. I've even known a few non-smokers to request
me to light up to encourage the skitters to move on
(especially when I used to smoke cloves). It is also
likely that some smokers support the ban. How many
people support and oppose the ban?
Secondly, of the higher percentage of non-smokers, how
many of them go to the places that will be affected by
this ban? How many of them hang out in Half Time Rec
or Porters or Ground Zero or First Avenue or Hard
Times? If they don't go there, how can the choices
being made by those who do be any of their business?
And for those who do hang out in those places, aren't
they making a choice to go there? No one is forcing
them in.
Finally, this seems to create a "tyranny of the
majority" situation. Substitute any minority desire
and the same "majority believes" argument could be
used. As an example, I don't care if 5% or 85% of the
population oppose medical marijuana, keeping it from
people with glaucoma and cancer is still wrong in my
book.
# To the concept of smoking making people want to
drink more (and that this is the motivation behind
business owners wanting to keep smoking - another ad
hominum attack against those opposing the ban)
Personal anecdotes do not prove anything. That said,
in my own case, I do not find this to be the
situation.
Drinking makes me want to smoke more (probably due to
decreased judgment). Smoking does not make me want to
drink more.
A few years back I quit smoking for 6.5 months. I
found that when I went out, I tended to drink more,
not less. After the first couple months, I'm pretty
sure it wasn't the nic fits, so what was it?
I, like many two year old children, have a tendency to
want to put anything in my hands into my mouth. If it
is food, I snack constantly. If it is a beverage, I
drink constantly. If it is tobacco, I smoke
constantly. If it is willing company, I ... well,
never mind. I think I may have what is sometimes
called an "oral fixation".
If I don't have a cig, I drink more.
I did experiment a bit. I tried switching to juice
between drinks, but it is expensive and I drank it
much faster than I drink beer or wine. I found I
couldn't afford it (I can easily have 3 - 6 juices an
hour). I didn't want to drink soda (health reasons,
y'know), and I got embarrassed asking for another
glass of water every 10 minutes (besides, I bored of
it after a bit).
It isn't that I can't consciously control myself, but
my tendency when not smoking seems to be to drink
more, not less. I can't say that it works like that
for everyone, but I can't say that it doesn't work
like that for many people. For me, bars make more if
I am not smoking - be it juice, booze, or even (at
least for those getting the tips) water.
# To the idea that this is not an issue of rights:
It is true that nowhere in the constitution does it
lay out the right to smoke. The constitution also
does not expressly give you the right to go to a bar
and order a drink, either.
The right in question is the right to make one's own
decisions about how one lives one's own life. Is that
not my right? Is it not yours? If it isn't, I've got
a whole list of things I'd like to see changed...
# To the idea that this is a protection of worker's
health:
The ban as some would have it would prevent places
like Hard Times Cafe from allowing smoking if they
choose. Hard Times - owned by the people who work
there - if they don't mind having smoking and the
people who go there don't mind being in smoke, then
all you are doing is forcing your ethics and your will
on people who have made other choices.
As to non-worker owned businesses: Frankly, I've got
no problem with the idea of a business telling
prospective employees the potential risks and letting
the prospective employees decide whether they want to
work there, ask for more compensation, or look
elsewhere.
It is when risks are hidden, distorted, or sprung on
unwilling existing employees that I have a problem.
When I signed on as a bouncer, I knew that there was a
reasonable chance of physical injury. I was a little
suprised by the psychological injuries that occur and
almost quit over it, but have found ways to cope. I
also knew that I stood a good chance of hearing loss
and would be exposed to a lot of smoke. However,
there are aspects to the job I like which makes it an
acceptable choice for me. My life, my body, my risks,
my choice. So far, it's the hearing loss that's
bugging me the most. If I get cancer and I haven't
found a way to get health insurance again, I'll die.
Even if I do manage insurance, I may die from it.
Sucks, but that's the result of the decisions I have
made. Choosing to live in a higher pollution urban
area has some negative impacts as well. (Oh, and to
those who don't want to pick up my medical tab for
smoking, at this point you won't, and even if I do
manage to pick up health insurance again, I'm pretty
sure I will be paying quite a bit more for both it and
life insurance than a non-smoker does. If you want to
pick up my health insurance, I'm much more willing to
concede your interest in my habits.)
Anyway, I do find it interesting that both of the
worker-owned coffeehouses I know of have smoking. I
guess they're exploiting themselves.
Finally, a thought:
As long as we're talking public health issues, I want
a excessive decibel ban.
I play in a band and work in a nightclub. I also like
to go out to drink and dance and listen to live bands.
However, many of these places are so noisy that my
ears end up ringing at the end of the night. Of
course, I could (and sometimes do) wear hearing
protection, but these make conversation difficult and
diminish the experience of hearing live music. I have
also found it very difficult to effectively work while
wearing earplugs (not being able to hear someone
calling for security is a Bad Thing). Guitar solos
never quite come out as well when I'm playing through
a filter either.
So, in the interest of public health, I want
Minneapolis to ban noise levels over 85dBA. Experts
agree that, over time, exposure to noise above 85 dBA
will cause hearing loss. (note: most concerts are at
110 - 120 dBA, so everyone will have to turn it down a
bit)
Sound fair?
In actuality, the parts of my job which take me near
the speakers at work are a lot more difficult and
painful than dealing with the smoke. If I worked at
the Half Time Rec over in St. Paul, that would be
reversed, but hey, I choose to go there too. Just
like I chose to work where I work.
PS: PLEASE don't take the decibel ban seriously
My basic position, if it isn't obvious:
If you don't want to go to a bar with smoking in it,
don't go to a bar with smoking in it. If you want
more bars that are non-smoking, open them or lean on
the management of the existing ones to change their
policies. If you hear about a bar whose workers are
trying to get their workplace to provide a safer
environment, support them. If another bar is staffed
by a bunch of people who like being able to smoke on
the job, leave them alone.
As a side note, I'm much more open to the idea of
banning smoking anywhere paid for or subsidized by
public funds. Bad luck for sidewalk seating, but
forcing pedestrians to hold their breath through blue
clouds on Nicollet seems like a reasonable complaint.
- Jason Goray
Sheridan, NE
Who will enjoy the benefits of the smoking ban, but
whose personal ethics can not support it.
Who has personally appreciated this debate in that it
has made him evaluate many of our society's laws, the
parties who created and support those laws, and the
concept of representative democracy as a whole.
Who appreciates Robert Yorga for expressing the views
I thought the Green party believed in - from the
smoking ban to an approach towards encouraging better
living to automobiles to wondering what happened with
the off-duty police officers hurting people during
art-a-whirl.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
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
