On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 09:46, Mark Snyder wrote: > On 6/26/04 7:30 AM, "Victoria Heller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For $89.95, anyone can be protected from "all known chemical and biological > > agents." Some models even come with drinking tubes. > > Why should non-smokers or businesses have to shell out $90 for a mask? > > Smokers put the smoke in the air, it should be their responsibility to deal > with it so that it doesn't harm others. > > Personal responsibility and all...
Well, at least Mark doesn't engage in any ad hominem attacks on libertarians and anarchists and "reactionary conservatives", as some in this forum have been. Not all of us are "shills" for tobacco companies and not all of us think the Wild West was a well-run society. Certainly "reactionary conservatives" are not the only people who consider there to be some divide between the government and the people (as Ms. Wittstock suggest), wasn't it the feminists who invented the slogan "Keep your laws off my body"? But what tortured definition of personal repsonsibility is this, Mark? It might be applicable if the smokers were dumping dangerous levels of toxins into the public airspace, like all the cars and trucks that drive past my house do... or if the toxins in question were polluting the public waters... But in this case, no one has argued that cigarette smoke in bars, cafes, and restaurants is even a bit player in our larger air pollution problem-- the only people affected are those people who choose to spend their time in smoky little rooms. Considering that the establishments in question are privately owned businesses and the fact that attendance in these places is purely voluntary, one has to wonder what personal responsbility has to do with any of this. Personal responsibility might come into play when the same smokers who choke down a pack of cancer sticks a day come looking for health care handouts in the form of single payer health care plans or something... but with repsect to smoking in bars, cafes, and restaurants it seems to me that the person who is responsible for considering the risks and mitigating the dangers here is the person who perceives those risks-- i.e. militant anti-smokers. It's kind of like how I consider it my personal responsibility to avoid eating animal flesh by not ordering meat items in restaurants because it goes against my religious beliefs and my sense of what is healthy food to eat, rather than trying to pass a blanket ban on any business serving meat at all (I wonder if the animals some people eat were given the same choice). If I were really serious about it I would probably refuse to even eat at restaurants where meat were served, in case of cross-contamination (an actual health hazard that kitchen regulations prohibit) and the appearance of supporting this brutal diet. In the same sense, militant anti-smokers have a personal responsibility to avoid patronizing places that put them in (perceived) danger. As for businesses buying masks: it is the business' choice to allow smoking at this time-- no law *requires* having a smoking section, even thought there are laws that require non-smoking sections in many of these businesses already. Ergo, the business would be taking "personal" responsibility for the (perceived) risk to its employees by providing them with such masks. Presumably those costs associated with catering to smokers would be passed on to customers of the establishment. Should militant anti-smokers consider it unacceptable that their freely surrended cover charges and drink payments would subsidize smoke masks, they would be free to take personal responsibility for their personal spending and entertainment habits and shop elsewhere. In spite of all this, if anti-smokers want to patronize smoky businesses without risking the dangers of ETS, then it would behoove them to purchase these masks for themselves. In fact it would make a great statement to the smokers and to the business owners. In any case, smoke-free alternatives do exist now and would exist in greater numbers if militant anti-smokers actually organized a boycott or something along those lines (wouldn't it be a hoot if a bunch of anti-smokers showed up wearing masks to prove how many of them there are and just how upset they are over being asked to breathe in all that filthy air to enjoy a good night out?) An outright ban should be considered an absolute last resort. Why is a ban the only option that militant anti-smokers will even consider? I mean, can you imagine how quickly certain bars, cafes, and restaurants would change their tune if there were suddenly a mass movement of non-smokers who insisted on finding alternative venues until those businesses changed their smoking policy? I can only imagine that downtown businesses (already hurting a bit from shooting-related drops in business) would quickly get the message as their bank accounts grow thin... but you don't know until you try. This is something I can get behind myself. If any bars, cafes, or restaurants would be interested in changing their policy as part of such a campaign, I certainly would go check it out and give them a little financial support for their efforts, even if it wasn't really my kind of place normally. I would also gladly buy a mask and show up to any peaceful demos at places like First Ave, the Saloon, the 90s, or other bars I'm in the (now-rare) habit of patronizing. All this talk of protecting people from the dangers of something they are voluntarily exposing themselves to has me really confused about the state of our priorities here in Minneapolis. City government has enough on its plate right now without wasting a lot of time and effort on this type of thing. We are facing budget crunches so severe that the City can't afford to restripe all the dang roads it built. Idea: charge people money to park their cars on the street, not just downtown and by the U, but everywhere, especially in front of my house. I've gone to extensive personal expense to provide a driveway and garage for my own vehicle(s), why is it that tax dollars are subsidizing free parking for others? Also, non-ETS air pollution is a big concern of mine. According to the American Lung Assocation, some 60,000 people a year die from air pollution-related causes-- mostly the result of car and truck exhaust. In a city like Minneapolis, where it is estimated that something like 25% of the population does not own a motor vehicle, it seems that motorists put quite a burden on non-motorists. Sure, non-motorists derive benefits from motor vehicles, especially delivery trucks, buses, and ambulances and the like. But does this mean that my neighborhood streets need to be big enough and wide enough to act as both road and parking lot? It's even worse in Uptown. The streets down there are positively choked with parked cars. But this is just my own personal pet peeve. The City has other, even more important priorities to consider. I have to wonder about City involvement in things like Mosaic, when the Police and Fire departments are losing funding. The City has a core responsibility to provide things like police and fire services, it does not have a core responsibility to promote the arts (not that I am not a big fan of the arts myself). Given that our time and money are finite, maybe it's time for the City government to return to fundamentals and worry about some of these nice-to-haves, like the arts or smoking bans, after the other problems are solved. - Michael C. Libby, Cleveland neighborhood. 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
