the simple point is ... the option to smoke is not taken away from smokers. They can go puff all they want still as long as they don't inflict it on others. While inside they are perfectly welcome to chew nicotine gum, or wear a nicotine patch, or put a wad in their mouth to get their fix - that wouldn't affect me in the least.
the simple point is ... not all employees have the option of finding other work. You are going under the assumption that it is no problem for them to go elsewhere - I know a lot of people in school who are trying their darndest to survive financially and really don't have tons of options but put up with it because they feel they don't have the choice.
the simple point is ... that you too have choices as to you're own exposure to solvents. As an artist I know from personal experience - (I'm sure you know) they're called respirators. I can bet your boss would run out in a hurry to get one if you insisted - or they could be considered liable, but it is your choice if you don't use one.
Liz Greenbaum Longfellow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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
