On 7/26/04 3:41 PM, "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is my basic point: If people are unwilling to respect the rights and > choices of others when it has no direct impact on them, how are they likely to > do so in circumstances involving personal risk? That is, if you are so > self-absorbed that you can't allow people to smoke in a contained area, why > would you risk your career or the safety of your family to stand up > for the rights of someone who your government is saying is a danger to you? Here's where I think Mr. Atherton's logic fails. The problem I see is with the statement "when it has no direct impact on them" The point that supporters of the newly-passed smoking ban wanted to make is that, whether as employees in a bar or restaurant or merely customers, they felt impacted by secondhand smoke. I suppose people can argue whether that's true that they are or were actually impacted, but I think it is inappropriate to suggest that these folks were simply "unwilling to respect the rights and choices of others when it has no direct impact on them." Those who have followed this discussion in the news and in this forum have seen numerous examples where both bar and restaurant workers and customers expressed how they felt impacted by secondhand smoke. Personally, I could turn around the statement that "if you are so self-absorbed that you can't allow people to smoke in a contained area, why would you risk your career or the safety of your family to stand up for the rights of someone who your government is saying is a danger to you" and ask "if you are so self-absorbed that you have to subject those around you to the negative health impacts from your habit or addiction, why would you expect them to show you and your "rights" any more respect than you've shown for theirs?" It's no different than those who tried to argue that "With [fill in the blank] going on, why are we wasting time on this smoking ban stuff?" It's not up to any of us to decide what other folks spend their time advocating for or against. I personally think supporters of a ban on gay marriage are pretty clueless, but I still respect their right to to spend their time advocating their position on that issue if that's what they want to do. It just means I have to spend some of my time advocating against it. Mark Snyder Windom 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
