It is interesting to note that the reason the council members voted for this measure was not to expand upon courtesy. Nor was it "parental socialism."
The primary reasons were:
1. The health of workers, especially in light of the previous few years and lack of jobs, is of paramount importance. No one should have to choose between their health and a paycheck, but that was exactly what was happening when people were setting out to look for a job. A work environment needs to be available for anyone to work there and not risk their health.
2. When it comes to contradictory freedoms, such as a non-smoker's freedom to not breathe in harmful toxins that are created by another person's freedom to produce them, it comes down to examining who has the greater right. They both have equal rights on the basis of liberty and pursuit of happiness (to paraphrase Councilman Samuels) but when it comes to life -or "health"- the right of a smoker would remove the rights of the non-smoker while the non-smoker would not do the same to the smoker. A non-smoker breathing does not violate the health of a smoker. The reverse cannot be said.
I agree, as did the City Council when they voted on it, that there will be a large, negative impact on small, family owned bars, especially in NorthEast Minneapolis. Samuels stated that this was his biggest disincentive to support the measure.
However, he finally elected to do so for the other reasons, stated above.
The entire Council, however, did resolve to request people to start going out to those local, neighborhood bars to give them support during the transition from smoking to smoke-free. Where these laws have been passed in other cities, there is always a drop-off in bar traffic at first but it does re-bound.
People still go to their neighborhood bars; the primary reason for that being that they like to drink and have a few beers with their friends.
This was not about abdication of choice, although when I first began researching the issue for an article I was writing, that's what I thought. This is about health concerns and worker safety as well as the cost to the community in increased insurance costs, medical treatment, etc., for workers forced to labor in environments where smoking is permitted.
It is not curtailing my ability to smoke if a business does not allow smoking from patrons.
As for mandating special non-smoking areas and passing legislation that requires non-smoking employees to work in those areas, that was also addressed by the council and rejected because it would be un-equal application of law based upon economic status. Smaller, poorer bars would not be able to afford the extra equipment; compliance would be a huge financial burden.
Similarly, exempting certain businesses leads to a nightmare of enforcement as discovered by Duluth when it tried it a few years ago. (Eventually, they had to go over to a complete, all-encompassing model.)
In the end, the decision was unpopular with many people but the reasons behind it were sound. Even if you disagree with the logic that the Council applied, they did not behave ignorantly or in a fashion to deprive adults of their decision-making abilities.
Yours, David J Rust NorthEast Minneapolis
On Dec 29, 2004, at 9:42 AM, Michael Thompson wrote:
VERY well said, Scott. What I've wondered from the beginning is how many of
the smoking ban proponents will patronize some of the "less trendy"
working-class, "have-a-beer-with-the-boys" bars in Northeast or Hiawatha
Avenue area. How many of the smoking ban proponents will now visit the
American Legion and VFW because they're now smoke-free?
The people that supported this patronizing, infantilizing measure
voluntarily abdicated their ability to make an adult decision and said to
the city council: "I don't have the moral courage to make a decision in my
best interest. I don't like smoke, but I can't decide NOT to go into a smoky
bar on my own. Citycouncilperson, please make my decision for me." It's
absolutely pathetic. It simply astounds me how adults can act this way.
Someday, the smoking ban proponents will understand that freely giving away
their ability to make decisions on their own will come back to haunt them
when a decision they actually don't support is made for them by the city
council. That day is not far off.
Dr. Michael Thompson Southwest Minneapolis Life-long non-smoker
----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott McGerik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mpls Issues List" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [Mpls] Mpls Year in Review, Unsung Heros
[EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.Diane Wiley wrote:
I disagree that the smoking ban is a step backwards -- I think it's just
common courtesy on a large scale
The City Council has to pass a law to force you to behave in a courteous
manner? Strange. Strange that you call coerced behavior courtesy.
This is what is called parental socialism, that is, seeking to have values
imposed upon oneself by other persons or by the state. The smoking ban is
a step backward because it is continues the infantilization of our
society.
I wonder about those who wanted a smoking ban so that they could go to a
smoke-free bar. Why didn't they open a smoke-free bar? It seems there was
a fair number of people interested in such a bar. Assuming the ambience
was good, I would go because I dislike the smell of my clothing and hair
after spending an evening at a smoky bar.
Scott McGerik South St Paul (formerly of Hawthorne) http://scott.mcgerik.com/
REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager athttp://e-democracy.org/discuss.html2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see:E-DemocracyFor external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - MnPost 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
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
