- the simple point is ... greed has nothing to do with health issues. Non-smokers (anti-smokers as is stated here) are not about forcing smokers to stop smoking. It is about protecting exposure to second-hand smoke and the health risks that implies. Smokers DO have public places they can smoke, but is to be in places that do no put others at risk. Once again, smokers are welcome to get their nicotine from other sources - patches, gum, chewing tobacco, whatever - as long as it doesn't affect the health risk of others. Smokers have the freedom to smoke at their own risk - they just now have to do it in a way that is not creating a health risk to others too. Who's looking greedy here???
Liz Greenbaum Longfellow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course society needs rules. The primary purpose of them, though should be to protect individuals liberties from governments. Non smokers have always had smoke-free venues to visit, but they are greedy, and want everywhere to be just the way they would like it. Now, smokers will have no public venues. Anti-smokers are anti-choice, anti-freedom (lately).
Dan McGrath
Longfellow (3429 Snelling Ave S!)
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
