--- Victoria Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> David Brower quips: "(Remind me to call it "property rights hysteria" the
> next time that issue comes up. We can do better than inflammatory rhetoric
> here.)"
>
> Vicky responds: The smoking ban controversy IS a property rights issue. It
> boils down to a conflict between the "Nanny State" and "Private Property
> Rights".
But it is not only a property rights issue. It is a public health issue as well
and the current majority seems to be deciding that the public health costs
outweighs the property rights issue in this case.
>
> To frame the debate, let's start with some facts.
>
> 1. 80% of the population does not smoke. The other 20% paid $247 million
> of excise and sales taxes in 2002, plus $363 million in tobacco settlement
> payments to Minnesota, for a total of $610 million.
>
> 2. Tobacco is a legal, heavily taxed (and heavily subsidized) product.
>
> 3. The percentage of people who smoke declines each year.
>
> 4. Virtually everyone knows that health risks are associated with tobacco
> use.
>
> The left argues: The 80% majority of the population deserves "victim"
> status, thus government protection.
I think this can be less antagonistically phrased as, "The left argues:
Sometimes public health outweighs property rights and it does in this case". So
are you arguing that it does not?
>
> The right argues: Voluntary acts involving legal products on private
> property are none of your business.
The right argues: It is legal, thus I don't care about public health, I'll just
pay lobbyists to make sure it stays legal. And by the way, if you change
anything I better get paid. And give me another tax break while we are at it.
Twisting words is really annoying, isn't it?
>
> If 80% of the population wants smoke-free night clubs and restaurants, many
> would exist. Free markets and profit motives work. As time goes on, there
> will be fewer and fewer smokers; so the problem will solve itself. In the
> meantime, NOTHING prevents the establishment of smoke-free venues.
>
This has been argued. Tobacco companies subisidize bars (this is really true?)
thus the profit motive keeps smoking in there. So yes, the free market and
profit motive is working very well for tobacco companies. I would say that
starting at a competitive disadvantage of forgoing tobacco company subsidies is
at least hindering smoke-free venues.
> >From the Illinois Supreme Court: "It is precisely for the protection of the
> minority that constitutional limitations exist. Majorities need no such
> protection. They can take care of themselves." Ring V. Board of Education
> (1910)
Public Health affects the majority of people, should it not be protected?
Again, simple arguments shouldn't lead to conclusions, almost everything
deserves more inspection.
>
> Regulating people out of business is a government "taking" - equivalent to
> the abuse of eminent domain powers. Such acts on the part of government
> require "just compensation" to the harmed parties.
Places with smoking bans have not lost businesses. No one is being regulated
out of business. And this whole "just compensation" statement raises my
eyebrows. I'm certain it's a deep topic with polarized sides but doesn't sound
right. Let me head something off here. I haven't been around here for that
long, but I'll bet that property rights have been argued ad naseum before. I'd
rather not get a tour of the trenches.
>
> The regional solution is to do nothing. Let free markets and freedom of
> choice prevail.
Free markets? A free market like the one that created Standard Oil? Or like the
one created companies that pollute whatever they can whenever they can until
regulated? Or like the one that created companies that need "replacement
smokers" to maintain profits? Yes, let's all cheer free markets.
Not all companies are bad, and not all regulations are good. I'm just pointing
out that there is a necessary balance.
Ken Jorissen
Whittier
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
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
