--- Michael Atherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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?
Does personal choice preclude something being considered a "public health
issue"? What is the definition of a "public health issue"? I am surprised to
learn that I am operating without a good definition. I've been trying to come
up with one but it keeps either getting invaded by concepts that should be
separate or just leads to needing more definitions.
This is a public forum that is supposed to be about Mpls, but this is a
wonderful question that I think gets to the heart of quite a few things. So I
ask you (everyone really) to define "public health issue". Which I believe will
involve discussing the role of government (City in this case) at a very
fundamental level. I see problems ahead.
>
> 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.
>
The smoking room issue starts revealing where this gets thorny. On a personal
freedom basis with the current laws, I agree, probably quite a few other do as
well. However, the problem seems to be one of practicality. This has already
been discussed:
1. Employee health - Would they enter the rooms? Who would clean it? Is this
about protecting employees?
2. Enforcement - This would have to be codified, implemented, and inspected.
This would be a long, painful, and expensive task.
3. Unlevel playing field - Smaller businesses may not be able to put in smoking
rooms and thus could be at a disadvantage.
The question is whether the loss of freedom is more costly than resolving the
above and any other issues around "smoking rooms". Is freedom an absolute,
meaning that no cost is too high to counter impinging a freedom? No, you've
given up the freedom to drive without a license, the freedom to spray DDT, the
freedom to pay people less than minimum wage, and a million other freedoms. It
is a tradeoff of being a member of a society.
Personally, I loved Mark Snyder's remark about what would happen if cigarettes
were introduced today. For those of you that missed that, I will sum up: "Hello
Mr. Government, I want to sell a product that has several hundred known
carcinogens and causes harm by being near it being used. Oh, all you do is burn
it and inhale the smoke. Doesn't do much, but makes you feel nice. Oh, did I
mention it is more addictive than crack?" The only reason tobacco is still
legal is because of what I will refer to as TWOTP (the will of the people).
People don't like change and don't like the perceived freedoms being taken
away. And don't forget, tobacco (well the nicotine in it) is more addictive
than crack.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
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
