Property doesn't have rights. --David Shove Roseville
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Scott McGerik wrote: > > > 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 > 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
