>> 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.
>
> I agree with the doctor that there should be
> reasoned discussion on this
> matter.
...
> 1.8% of 2,416,425 would be 43,496 people.
As I once read somewhere, why does it take a study to
tell us that breathing fumes from burning vegetation
may not be good for us?
How could inhaling clouds of cigarette smoke could
possibly be non-detrimental to one's health(1)? This
is why I fully support protecting people from ETS in
publicly owned spaces schools, hospitals, libraries,
transit, court rooms, etc. I also see no reason for
society at large to cover the expenses to provide
smoking accomodations in those spaces. This is also
why I am much more open to the idea of banning smoking
on the sidewalks than I am to banning smoking in bars
- sidewalks are public property that everyone has a
right (and in general, a need) to use.
I would differ from the prevailing view on places like
theaters, restaurants, airplanes, etc. (of course, if
the airline or theater has received public funding,
that changes things). Of course, owners of the
services/establishments should always have a right to
prohibit smoking.
Obviously, my opinion on what is public and what is
private differs from the opinion held by many of the
smoking ban supporters. I believe that something
should only be "public" if it has been partially or
fully provided by the public.
I confess to not having a full understanding of why a
private business is seen as a public facility. If I
am not mistaken, it has something to do with the fact
that society supports the framework which allows it to
exist, but it seems like that would cover my duplex as
well. (which, ironically, I've banned smoking in)
I'm not sure if this is under list purview, but a
better or more detailed explanation would be
appreciated. I'm in the process of reevaluating my
opinions and input would be useful.
> Again, nobody's trying to take away anyone's "right
> to make one's own decisions about how one lives
> one's own life"
>
> It's simply a matter of stating that one who chooses
> to smoke doesn't get to do it anywhere they please.
> Just like I can't wander into a park with a six
> pack of my favorite microbrew and work my way
> through it or drive on the sidewalk to get around
> some messy traffic or ride an ATV through wetlands.
Parks, sidewalks, and protected wetlands are publicly
owned properties, therefore society at large has more
influence over what happens with them.(2)
>> Who appreciates Robert Yorga for expressing the
>> views I thought the Green party believed in - from
>> the smoking ban...
>
> As a Green Party member, I'm kind of curious what
> was meant by this. My suspicion is that it's a
> reference to the Green value of personal
> responsibility and that those who wish to avoid
> secondhand smoke exposure should just take it upon
> themselves to avoid it rather than have the
> government play any role.
Actually, I hadn't considered that point (but I do
appreciate it when people take the time to look at
both sides of an opinion). I had consciously intended
it to give Robert kudos on his recent posts, and bring
up the "what happened at art-a-whirl" question again.
(btw, what about Hiader Al-Amery?)
However, I realize (and I regret having tied Robert's
posts to this) that the "I thought the Green party
believed in" aspect of it was a passive-aggressive
attack. I apologize for this as it had no place in
reasoned discourse. It was unnecessary and did not
belong on this forum. Mea Culpa, and I sincerely mean
that.
Part of it was in reaction to some rather vitrolic
statements I've read from a particular Green on this
issue, but I think it was also due in part to a
crisis-of-conscience I've been suffering regarding
this family of subjects and my past support of the
Green party. It is the tip of a deeper iceberg which
also has me seriously questioning my feelings about
representative democracy as it exists in this country.
Perhaps I've read too much into the Green platform,
but my understanding was that Greens believe that
power and decision making should be as decentralized
as possible. I always assumed that this was not just
city-county-regional-state-federal, but also going
smaller. If a city can leave a decision to a
neighborhood, if a neighborhood can leave the decision
to a block, if the block can leave the decision to a
business or family, if a business or family can leave
a decision to an individual, they should do so. It is
only when the impacts of a decision go past the
boundaries of the group making the decision that it
needs to get rolled up to a larger group. Cooperation
with those around you on initiatives to make your
community better is (of course) to be encouraged, but
your non-consenting participation should not be
required unless you are having an actively negative
impact on those around you.
This (mis?)understanding created a conflict in my mind
when I realized that the smoking ban had fairly broad
Green support.
> My question in response to that is what about the
> personal responsibility of the smoker to ensure
> others are not being harmed (or even just annoyed)
> from their activities? It would seem that those who
> oppose a smoking ban think it's OK for smokers to
> shirk their responsibilities and the rest of us just
> have to deal with it. That seems more selfish to me
> than for nonsmokers to want to be able to have a
> meal or a drink without having to deal with someone
> else's smoke.
I suddenly see a point in which my posts have been
rather unclear!
In this debate, my concern is not for the smoker's
right to smoke. For example, I do not think anyone has
a right light up in The Riverside Cafe or the Heights
Theater. It is the rights of the people who own/run
the business that trouble me.
If a few of my friends and I were to open a pub or
coffeehouse, I believe we should be able to choose
what beverages we serve, whether or not we wish to
serve food and if so, what sort of food we have. I
also believe that we should be able to choose whether
or not we wish to permit smoking, and if so, limit
tobacco types or smoking times or amounts as we wish.
(Cloves and Hookahs only, and only after 8pm? It'd
smell a lot better and make it more pleasant for
families earlier...)
If we do choose to allow smoking and you don't want to
go there, I understand. Similarly, only meat dishes?
only veggie dishes? only fair trade coffee? only
folgers? blaring music? no one is permitted to speak
above a whisper? no cell phones? I respect your right
to choose to come and visit or not to, but I want the
right to do as I will in my own place.
Obviously, I'm somewhat too anarchist/libertarian to
be comfortable in our society. In general, I believe
that the only places government should be involved in
a business is making sure that they don't mislead
their customers (eg: if I serve food and imply that
that food is safe to eat, it should be. if I say it
is fair trade coffee, it better not be folgers) and
making sure that they don't permit any of society's
laws to be broken(3) (I don't sell cigarettes to
minors, I don't permit someone to be beat up without
either stopping it or calling the police, etc.)
> I'm also kind of curious how some of the
anti-smoking
> ban folks feel about this discussion going on
regarding
> pedestrians/bicycle riders vs. automobile drivers
since
> there would appear to be some similarities. You've
got
> pedestrians (nonsmokers) being threatened by drivers
> (smokers).
>
> Whose responsibility is it to accommodate who?
I'm not sure if you're referring to the pollution
issues or the right-of-way issues...
Of course, pedestrians and bicyclists are always right
*grin* ... Sorry, I couldn't resist.
General simplistic response (more detail on either if
anyone cares):
Right of way issues to me are just a matter of coming
up with a set of rules that, barring mechanical
failure or rule violation, ensures the safety of
everyone involved.
Pollution issues. I can avoid smoke concentration by
not going to places that allow people to smoke. I can
only avoid auto pollution by leaving the city. I'd be
far more amenable to being told that I was no longer
permitted to drive my motorcycle in town (or having
limits set) than being told that the worker-owners of
Hard Times can't let me smoke there anymore even if
they want to.
##
(1) I think that if the total intake of air pollutants
are below a certain threshhold, the body's natural
filtering and cleansing systems are up to the task of
taking care of it. However, the biologically safe
thresholds on some materials is zero.
(2) I disagree with the law prohibiting having a beer
in a park. The laws that cover behaving badly
(whether drunk or not) cover the important concerns,
IMO.
(3) I disagree with some of society's laws - pretty
much any "consensual crime" law you can name, actually
- but that's a different topic.
- Jason Goray
Sheridan, NE
__________________________________
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
