Respirators work pretty good for cigarette smoke too! You are wrong. No choice has been taken from you by smoking. you choose to go into a place with smoke, or you choose not to. I hate country music. Should I call for a ban on this genre of twangy music, so I can enjoy the Country-Western bars? My choice to go to Country bars has been taken away from me by country music!
Dan McGrath Longfellow neighbor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Greenbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Minneapolis Issues Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [Mpls] Smoking Ban: What to do now? > the simple point is ... when there is smoking I don't have a choice to > go there. Because of a smokers habits my choices are taken away - and > believe me those are a lot of choices. > > 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
