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.
Excuse me?!?! Everyone is risking their lives and health by working. Everytime I drive to work, I am risking my life. The air in my office building is more polluted than the outside air, so I risk my health by working in an office building. The air outside is filled with toxins created by automobiles, factories, and farms. So I risk my health if I work outside. You are living in denial if you believe you can eliminate risk or that you can choose between working in a risk-filled environment or a riskfree environment..
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.
All this talk of the rights of smokers and nonsmokers is red herring because the nonsmokers always had the right to choose to not patronize or work at an establishment that allows smoking. This is not to say that all other alternatives are equally desirable but it never is the case that all alternatives are equally desirable.
By focusing on the supposed rights of smokers and nonsmokers, the City Council and the anti-smoking crowd ignored the issue of property rights. That is, the right of the property owner to allow/ban smoking on their property.
The entire Council 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.
This is a meaningless resolution. I would have prefered that the City Council examined why, in the face of so much support for smoke-free bars, why there were not more smoke free bars. What obstacles were in place that prevented someone from opening or converting a bar to a smoke free establishment?
Does the City Council limit the location of establishments serving alcohol? Does the City Council limit the number of establishments that can serve beer, wine, or liquor? Does the City Council put burdensome parking, hours of operation, and other regulations on establishments that serve alcohol? Does the City Council levy burdensome taxes and fees on establishments that serve alcohol? If the answer is yes to any of these, this may be the reason that there were not more smoke-free bars.
It is not curtailing my ability to smoke if a business does not allow smoking from patrons.
Yes, it is curtailing your ability to smoke because you can not smoke at that business. However, in this case, it is the business owner's decision and thus his risk that you will not patronize his business. The City Council, through its actions, denied all business owners the right to make that decision.
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 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
