Mark Snyder wrote: > 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 would agree that my logic is weaker IF there was an impact on employees or customers, but my argument has been based on "Smoking Rooms" that would protected them from exposure. Pro-Ban list members have consistently ignored this point, as Mr. Snyder is now. It's not as though Smoking Rooms are an abstract rhetorical concept, they were part of an ordinance voted by St. Paul's mayor and they exist in at least one major city. [BTW, I think that I can also argue that establishments clearly identified as "Smoking" also respect the rights of non-smokers, but you would have to accept the premise that customers and employees have a choice of frequenting such businesses and it is clear that many people are unwilling to concede that such choices exist.] > 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. I am not clear at this point if Mr. Snyder is arguing that Smoking Rooms will not be able to protect people or if he is just ignoring them. Let's assume the latter. Then let's consider the condition under which people FEEL they are impacted when they actually are not. This case is not defensible! You cannot justifiably restrict the rights of others on the basis of people's fears. Such an argument would have justified the interment of Japanese citizens. > 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?" I have never argued that people be subjected to negative health effects unless it is their choice. No one is suggesting that customers or employees be handcuffed to barstools. > 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 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. Mr. Snyder is attributing arguments to me that I never made. I never challenged anyone's right to advocate, I challenged their right to "ban" other people's behavior. Terrell Brown wrote: > Amazing the number of people that don't realize that a civilized > society requires certain rules with which its members are expected to > comply. Certainly societies need laws, but laws are not needed when people's behavior and choices has no direct impact anyone else. The need for additional laws is only driven by your need to force what you feel is "correct" on your fellow citizens. Michael Atherton Prospect 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
