Let's take a look at the arguments: David Shove says: Property doesn't have rights.
MT says: This is silly. Of course property, in and of itself, does not have "rights." Inanimate objects, to the best of my reasoning, cannot have rights. The "rights" are reserved by the owners of the property. I believe you probably knew that. Anyway, using your logic, I'll be over tomorrow to take what property of yours I want, and/or dictate to you what I wish to do with your house and yard. After all, it doesn't have "rights." Steve Nelson writes: Considering there are 82% of us who are non-smoking and only 18% who are it would seem we are already indicating that we would prefer businesses that are smoke-free. MT says: This is specious logic. The 82-18 majority is about the percentage of smokers versus the percentage of non-smokers in the population. It says nothing about the percentages of persons who support or do not support a smoking ban. I am a non-smoker, but I do not support the ban. Just because a majority doesn't participate in an activity does not make banning said activity right. Steve Nelson also says: However, this logical conclusion has been trumped--until now--by tobacco industry propoganda that smoking establishments must continue to cater to only 18% of the population to make a profit. A great many of the 82% still drink even if they don't smoke and they love music. Sounds like these places would do more business instead of less. MT says: This is patronizing rationalization. If you really believed the above to be true, you'd have enough faith in the market (without resorting to calling it "tobacco industury propaganda") to allow those businesses that choose to cater to non-smokers live and/or die by their customer base. In essence, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth: You imply your faith in the market to rebound, but we need a legal ban because of "tobacco industury propaganda". David Rust says: Whether or not you support the reasons behind the ban, the Council's request that people support their local bars and restaurants in this time period is something that I think most people can get behind. MT says: The council's "request" is the council's lame attempt at a Mea Culpa...... "we know that we're putting establishments out of business, showing no faith in the market, and doing it all because we know what's best for you but, by God, let's get out there and show our support." Typical do-gooder reaction.... after they cut off the head, then they want to try CPR. David Rust also says: For myself, I plan on going to more neighborhood bars and restaurants, now. Heck, a few years ago, my sister took me to see the drag show at the Gay 90's and I had a blast. The problem is, the smoke was so thick that I have never gone back. I plan on rectifying that come March 25th (which, I believe, is the date that the ordinance goes into effect). MT says: You kind of understand the way things are SUPPOSED to work: if you don't like smoky bars, stay out of smoky bars. I don't like country music, so I stay out of honky-tonk bars. In fact, I don't like bars much, so I stay out of them. It is so sadly pathetic that this logic does not transcend to many Minneapolis residents. David Rust also says: 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. MT says: If the health of workers REALLY was the issue, the city council would also do something about the incredible noise at some of the music clubs in town. After all, loud noise can cause irreversible damage to hearing. I don't see Zimmerman and Samuels and Benson and the rest of the Politburo going to bat for "the health of workers" in this regard. And you know why? Because it isn't trendy and doesn't even solicit as much as a yawn from the People's Republic of South Minneapolis. Overall, the smoking ban is about a lot of things. It is about imposition of will and the abdication of adult decision making authority. My biggest beef is with the latter: I am scared poopless that a bunch of my peers voluntarily turned in their spines to the Minneapolis City Council because they will not decide on their own to stay out of smoky bars because they don't like smoke. Believe it or not, this gives the council the message that other decisions can be made for us..... the list of which is endless. Minneapolis residents evidently would rather abdicate their freedom in making decisions, then wrestle with the tough decisions adults are often required to make. The city council now know this. This ordinance harms ALL OF US far more than second hand smoke ever will. Michael Thompson Southwest Minneapolis Life-long non-smoker 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
