Ken Jorissen wrote: > 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.
If secondhand smoke only affects those who have chosen to be exposed how is it a "public" health issue? I can't see that it is unless you are going to allow government to make private health decisions for individuals on issues that have no effect on the general public. A very very steep, slippery, and dangerous slope. Don't forget that legally, abortion is considered a private health decision. Do we want government making these types of decisions for individuals? I believe that providing ventilated rooms for smokers in private establishments is a reasonable regional solution (That will probably never be agreed upon by consensus. I also think that some non-smoking advocates may be correct in suggesting that the emphasis on regional solutions may just be diversionary.) Please explain why smoking rooms, that would insure that non-smokers are not exposed, are not a reasonable compromise. 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
