The simple point here that everyone seems to overlook, is that both smoking, and being exposed to second hand smoke are personal choices. Anyone who chooses to walk into a bar is choosing to expose themselves to second-hand smoke, along with bad breath, body-odor, and loud music which may be damaging to your hearing. We have a City Council which now wants to make our personal decisions for us. Business owners should have the final word on what goes on in their property! Imagine a shrewd business owner carving out a nice niche for him/herself with a smoke-free bar or club. Non-smokers, so harmed by the bars that they are apparently forced by gun-point into would flock to this new clean-air, haven, wouldn't they? Smokers could have their bars, non-smokers theirs. As far as worker's health issues, I emailed my council-member, Gary Schiff (Ward 9) about that point before the vote. I guess he couldn't see the logic in it, but here's an excerpt of that message:
"On to the issue of worker's health! People who work in bars are likely aware that people smoke in them. Much like in my profession of house painter, I am aware that oil based paints, solvents, laquers, gypsum dust, and various other hazardous and irritating air-borne vapors and particles come with the territory. Should I wish to avoid exposure to these things, I can certainly find another line of work. OR, should I demand that my employer stop using such products, better yet, push for a city-wide ban on all but latex based paint, so no painting company has an unfair advantage? You see my point, no doubt. Workers in bars don't have to work in bars. It's my experience that most bar workers smoke themselves, anyhow. " If anyone is actually looking to DO something about this new ban, visit http://www.smokeoutgary.org Dan McGrath > 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
