Mark Snyder wrote: > My focus has been on the characteristics of the smoke itself. If you > recognize that direct smoking is harmful, then you have to > recognize that secondhand smoke is harmful. It's the same stuff.
There is some issue of density. Water in some instances is deadly, in others not. > The "known" category is reserved for those substances for which there > is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans that > indicates a cause and effect relationship between the > exposure and human cancer. You mean like sunshine? Does this imply that we should ban sunbathing and tanning? Or, as I have been arguing it's a matter of personal choice. > On 6/23/04 3:18 PM, "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > An analogy of smoking rooms to automobiles would be for risky drivers > > to only be allowed to drive dangerously only on roadways that > > are not connected to rest of the highway system (of course > > they'd also have to drive non-polluting cars as well). > > Right. Who's in favor of building a separate roadway system for risky > drivers to drive on to keep them isolated from the rest of > us? Anybody? As I understand, you can currently pay a fee and race on private tracks and that most roadways are publicly funded and most restaurants and bars are privately financed. > So why would it make sense to build separate rooms in bars and > restaurants for smokers to smoke in? It makes sense only if business owners find it profitable, if not it would make more sense for them to go along with a ban. The difference is that the ban you are proposing would require them to eliminate smoking completely. > If we hold drivers accountable for behaving responsibly with > regards to those around them through our traffic laws, why wouldn't it > be OK to hold smokers accountable for behaving responsibly with regards to > those around them by setting limits on where people can smoke? I have always believed that smokers should be held accountable for secondhand smoke and I also agree that it's acceptable to limit where they can smoke. I just don't think that a single non-smoker should be able to walk into a bar where it's been permissible to smoke for a hundred years and tell everyone to put out their cigarettes. I think that smoking rooms provide a reasonable comprise and would appreciate it if you would explain why they are not. Michael Atherton Prospect Park 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
