Nathan Hunstad wrote: > The smoking ban has nothing to do with morality, and I find > the comparison between banning smoking in workplaces and > prohibition to be weird. I don't think smoking is immoral; > I just think that sucking on something that's on fire is stupid. > But that has nothing to do with the point of the smoking > ban, which is protecting workers from harm. If anything, I > think it is immoral to harm people's health so you can selfishly > enjoy something. > > I am a strong supporter of a smoking ban. I am also a strong > supporter of getting rid of bar closing times and the ban on Sunday > alcohol sales. When you come down to it, it is for the same reason: > allow people to act as long as it doesn't harm others, but don't > allow people to be harmed out of selfishness. Simple, consistent, > and it doesn't have anything to do with whose morality is better than > whose.
Chris Johnson wrote: > It's Mr. Atherton's arguments which have no logical consistency here. > Alcohol can be consumed safely and responsibly, and there is a fairly > large amount of medical evidence that doing so in certain quantities > actually improves one's health. Smoking tobacco can never be done > safely. Nor does my having a drink next to you in public ever force you > to consume along with me, unlike second-hand smoke. > > Further, smoking bans have nothing to do with morals or forcing them > onto others. It has to do with public's right and the employees' right > to breath clean air. Nobody is stopping you or anyone else from smoking > all the tobacco you want inside the confines of your own home. > > Establishments which go non-smoking gain the opportunity to receive my > discretionary spending, and that of others as well I'm sure. Most of my > extended family avoids smoky places. I'll try to make this as simple as I can because people just don't seem to get it. First of all, I proposed a compromise that would have eliminated any risk to non-consenting adults: ventilated smoking rooms. This was an idea that was included in St. Paul's proposal and one that Mr. Driscoll ridicules as "idiocy." POINT: Given that smokers would then do no harm to others, all arguments about the public's and employee's health are VOID. As are all arguments about the non-distributive effects of alcohol vs. tobacco. So what's left? 1) Smoking is unhealthy. Do you really want to give government unbridled power to limit what you do that is unhealthy? If you don't see the dangers inherent in this, there's no point in your wasting time reading further. I believe that the only consistent philosophical alternative (that is, one that doesn't require an omnipotent authority to judge healthy from unhealthy) is to allow individuals to decide for themselves. If you haven't gotten the idea here yet, here are a list of things the government could ban that are potentially bad for your health: donuts, bicycle riding, skiing, walking downtown after 2pm on a weekend night, McDonalds, boating... Although not endless, this list is very long and many items on this list are also potentially harmful for others as well as yourself. As to the lack of morality (I guess people don't see the irony of claming the limiting of other people's behavior is not an expression of morality): any judgment involving the uprightness, goodness, decency, probity, rectitude, righteousness, rightness, virtue, or virtuousness is a moral decision. Somehow the act of YOUR making this decision defines it as a-moral. 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
