> It's not to protect smokers from themselves, but to
> protect others from
> being exposed to secondhand smoke.
But is it really? This is the part of the debate I
think has lost its way. I think it started out as
protecting from 2nd hand smoke but quickly morphed
into really a means to get people to quit. Many a
proponent has posted articles and studies about the
dangerous effects of smoking tobacco claiming the info
as more fuel for the ban's fire.
If this were truly about 2nd hand smoke I could see
your point but things tell me it isn't.
John Harris
webber-camden
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
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
