1st, I'm truly sorry for the mish-mash taking up so much room on issue 31. It got bounced about 6 times so I don't know why it ever printed or what I'd done. Then..about "rights." Of course I knew I was setting myself up for the inevitable slings and arrows when I posted the rights message (some of you noted the quotes I put on that; others did not). But I want to be clear on my comparison of smokers to minorities. I don't equate smokers' rights with civil rights like voting or housing or education. The comparison was strictly to numbers, and I used the age category first in an effort to make that clear. Obviously, with some people I failed. I simply wanted to form a mental image of a sizable group rather than the amorphous 20-30% that seems so easily dismissed.
Others have since responded to some of the accusations that I was blindly ignoring 60 years of research, etc. You said it well, but I want to emphasize one thing: research on the effect of smoke inhaled directly into the lungs is NOT the same as research on 2nd-hand smoke. And while most of the literature on ETS cites "estimates" and possible risks, let's assume those numbers are accurate. I include here the text of a letter published this morning in the Pioneer Press. Secondhand smoke reality As a physician who sees the consequences of smoking, I wish all smokers out there would quit. But my letter today is in response to the barrage of numbers we have been hit with as Minnesota considers stricter restrictions on smoking rights. I see lots of figures presented by the American Heart Association and such, but no one puts them into perspective. If 35,000 heart-disease deaths to nonsmokers are attributed to secondhand smoke, then that is less than 6 percent of heart-disease deaths to nonsmokers. Although smoke exposure can trigger a heart attack, many folks with coronary disease will go on to have their heart attacks even if not exposed to a secondhand smoke trigger. As for lung-cancer deaths of nonsmokers, nonsmokers are still only one-eighteenth as likely as smokers to die from lung cancer. Finally, if the figures are correct, then 1.8 percent of all U.S. deaths are due to secondhand smoke. I think there should be reasoned discussion about this matter. Perhaps we want to ban smoking, but we should not scare the public into thinking that secondhand smoke puts them at nearly as much risk as smoking itself does. It is pure deception to suggest that it does. CARL HASBARGEN Note that this physician scrupulously uses the word "if," as in "if the figures are correct." It took guts for him to write that letter, but he makes very good sense of the often confused statistics. I think the greatest contribution the Cities and Minnesota can make to this debate is not to jump onboard with an ill-considered and inflexible ban. Why the rush? We can do it fairly if we study options, look at existing law and standards, and stop acting as if banning tobacco will make us immortal. Gail O'Hare 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
