> 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.
Few want the expense of ventilated smoking rooms. Do you think every bar and restaurant owner wants to invest tens of thousands of dollars in one of these rooms? Ask around and see. > 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 want to smoke and kill yourself, go right ahead. I don't think the government should regulate what is unhealthy for YOU, so if you smoke and don't affect anybody, go nuts. But when you smoke and harm ME, then you are making the judgment that it is okay to harm me in order to fulfill your pleasures. That's not right, and that is what is being addressed. Just like if you want to drive your car into a brick wall on your property, okay. If you want to drive your car into my car on the road, not okay. > 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. All of those things, when they are unhealthy, are unhealthy only for the person engaging in the activity. So there is no reason to ban them. Notice that for many of those activities, when the activities harm others, like boating while intoxicated, or walking around downtown late at night assaulting people, they are illegal, as they should be. > 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): I'm not limiting your ability to smoke, I'm just saying that you can't harm anybody else when you do it. If you want to travel down that path, you are arguing that forcing people to drive on the right side of the road is imposing morality on others, because you are limiting people's behavior. So are zoning ordinances. So are pure food and drug laws, anti-fraud laws, worker protection laws, and lots of other laws. The government prohibits certain behaviors when they harm others all the time. To do away with that would be chaos. === Nathan Hunstad CARAG Minneapolis, MN PGP DH/DSS public key -- http://www.angelfire.com/mn/freakpower/nhpubkey.txt ________________________________________________ Do you Gonzo?! http://www.angelfire.com/mn/freakpower 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
