Mark Snyder wrote: > I am ignoring the "smoking rooms" idea. > > The reason for that is because, apart from Mr. Atherton, > NOBODY [emphasis added] in Minneapolis seems to be advocating > for that position.
How widely held a belief is does not speak to its validity. In 1963 very few people were speaking against the Vietnam War, in 1973 it was widely opposed. In 1942 very few people spoke out for the rights of Japanese citizens, in 2004 we look back on their internment with abhorrence. I think that it is telling that many ban supporters are no longer addressing substantive issues. Here's an issue that I don't think has been addressed. Let's evaluate how successful the Minneapolis ordinance is at protecting individuals. Does the ordinance protect employees from second smoke? The answer is not completely. There are no protections for workers who have to provide service in outdoor patios. Since research into the effects of second hand smoke are incomplete so we have no idea of risks in this situation. The ordinance makes no provisions for the density of cigarette smoke in doorways, so there is a potential risk to passers-by and a risk of smoke entering buildings. Designated Smoking Rooms, as I have proposed, would have solved both of these problems. Smoking Rooms would have actually done a better job of meeting the stated goals of anti-smoking activists than the current ordinance. Greg Reinhardt wrote: > I doubt the end of western civilization is eminent as the > result of a semi-smoking ban. Smoking, much like alcohol > consumption, is a regulated behavior. For the sake of > 'freedom" should we extend both to those under 18 YOA? > At our behest, government protects us (the greater public) > from that what will harm us. The conflict with these vices > is akin to pleasures of individualism balanced against the > benevolence of the greater social welfare. The emphasis > on individual rights and smoking choices are overblown > (pun intended). True, the end of Western Civilization is not eminent, but if you look back in history to the Diaspora, the persecution of Christians, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, Segregation, Gay Bashing, (this is a very long list)... there is at their core a lack of respect for the rights of others. In fact, at the core of all acts of persecution and violence there is a lack of respect for the rights of others. I am proposing a simple guideline which can be used to determine how to insure that our laws and culture respects individuals: as long as an individual's actions do not impact others you have no right to interfere with their behavior. What I have been trying to point out, from sociological and psychological viewpoints, is that if the respect for the rights of others is not integrated into our culture and values in small ways, that it is unlikely to expect that we can prevent persecutions on a larger scale. I have a lot of difficulty understand why people shouldn't be allowed to sit comfortably in a confined ventilated area and smoke a cigarette. No one is suggesting that businesses be required to provide such facilities, just that they be allowed to. > Freedom without boundaries is chaos. No one is suggesting freedom without boundaries. In fact, I am suggesting greater responsibilities than are explicitly required in the Constitution. As to the age of adulthood: all societies have some boundaries to determine when children are granted adult rights and responsibilities. Arguing that such boundaries exist does not dictate what the rights and responsibilities of adults should be. Andrew Reineman wrote: > For me it comes down to the ventilation system in the bars > themselves, and the effectiveness those systems might or > might not have. Given the post I made yesterday about the > new evidence out showing the effects of even a small amount > of secondhand smoke on heart disease rates, a ventilation system > would need to be hospital grade in the smoking rooms, and separate > from the ventilation system of the nonsmoking rooms for this to > truly reduce the risks associated with someone entering that > establishment. > Can this even be done? Well an engineer at Honeywell doesn't > think so. >From an article in the Christian Science Monitor: > "There have been big changes in the past several years, says > Scott Roberts, North American sales and marketing manager for > Honeywell Commercial Air Products in Niceville, Fla. ... Still, > Mr. Roberts concedes that he can't make any health claims for > the new systems. "Second-hand smoke is significantly reduced," > he says, but adds, "Any amount is not good.'" The link: First of all, I think that there is a lot of confusion in your post between ventilation systems for entire bars and restaurants and those for limited confined areas. Neither ban advocates or opponents can make strong cases for the dangers of second hand smoke, there is simply not enough evidence at this point in time. > A physicist, James Repace, an expert on secondhand smoke, > told Assembly members that purification technology will > never be able to remove the contaminants generated by > burning cigarettes.... I am not claiming that Smoking Rooms will eliminate smoke, I am arguing that they will isolate it from individuals who do not want to be impacted. Besides, it is another issue as to what levels are hazardous. If as you claim, purification technology will never be able to remove all contaminates, then there are dangers associated with cooking that will put employees and costumers at risk. > The problem seems to be the stuff simply doesn't get > out of the air fast enough not to be harmful. And it > is the non smelly stuff that is part of the problem > -- the actual smoke can be removed without eliminating > some of the heavier particulate matter, which is left > behind. Also, the particulate matter is easily transferred > between rooms on people's clothes, and by the air currents > created by their movement. I think that this is really a reach. Suppose we assume that there is a risk from particulate matter generated by cigarettes, there is no evidence that it is a health risk and even more importantly the current ordinances would do nothing to protect against it even if there were. Before going out on a limb, based on my own knowledge of physics, I consulted with an MIT Ph.D. whose area of expertise is chemical engineering and plant-wide control. She stated that Smoking Rooms are entirely practical (okay, so she's my wife, but I can guarantee you that it has no influence on her professional judgment). The physics behind the concept of Smoking Rooms is so simple that it could be tested as part of a high school science fair project. But there's no need, Smoking Rooms are already in use in Vancouver, BC. Someone just needs to ask how well they work there. One St. Paul council member has already said that to their knowledge they work fine. 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
