--- Victoria Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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".
This is absurd. It suggests we can't have zoning, any type of business license requirements and that a property owner can do whatever damage they wish to anyone else as long as they own the property on which the activity takes place. We clearly can and do have safety and health regulations. To suggest that a resturant can leave food out, not prevent flies and pests, and have peeling lead paint in food prepartion areas all because that's the way the property owner wants it is equally absurd. When that resturant gets shut down, most here would think that is a good thing. Why someone should be denied workplace protection from health hazards solely because they work in a bar or resturant is discriminatory at best. Is the reason that the free market hasn't come up with a device that will prevent smoke from getting into other's lungs because those using the product just don't care about those around them? Maybe we could allow smoking in bars and other public places if the cigarette user was using a sealed device that would prevent the smoke from escaping into the room. That would eliminate the need for St. Paul's sealed rooms. Terrell Brown Loring 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
