Laura Waterman Wittstock wrote: > The smoke free ordinances respond to the 80% of the population that > does not smoke and the growing evidence that tobacco smoke is harmful > to those who are smoking as well as to those who are breathing in the > secondhand smoke. > > However, when you believe that any government controls amount to Nazi > nationalism, then rationality is not at work in the discussion. > Differences in views just have to be that, not the judgment that a > council member is ignorantly promoting oppression.
It is very frustrating that people fail to see the importance of minority rights. Throughout American history a majority of the electorate supported Manifest Destiny, Westward expansion, and the subjugation of Native Americans. Legal and social recognition of the rights of individuals would have prevented many abuses. There are two basic philosophical positions expressed in these posts: 1) It the role of government to enforce "positive" values onto individuals regardless of whether their behavior impacts others. 2) The role of government authority should be limited when individual choices do not impact others against their will. People are not forced to frequent particular bars or restaurants. Their "dollar votes" can help support business that provide the type of environments that they desire. There is absolutely no need for anti-smoking advocates to enforce their choices on everyone else, other than their own selfish interests or a desire to force their values on others. Both of these factors ignore the rights of individuals to make their own choices. Authoritarian oppression is the same whether it limits small individual choices such as one's sexual partners or the interests of thousands of individuals such as the subjugation of the Americas. I don't see that much difference between the Nazis and American expansionism, but I believe that honoring the rights of individuals would have prevented abuses in both instances. Oppression starts small. My position is one of tolerance and respect. I believe that business owners should be able to determine whether their establishments are smoking or non-smoking and that smokers should honor the rights of individuals to enjoy smoke free environments and that non-smokers should honor the rights of smokers to enjoy environments where they can smoke. I think that it's absurd that there is now not a single public establishment in Minneapolis where I can sit and enjoy a smoke and a drink just because some people feel it's bad for me. Why is it that there can't, at a minimum, be 10 licensed business in Minneapolis where smokers can enjoy their choices. Not to mention that all the health arguments are nullified by functioning technology in Vancouver, B.C. that protects non-smokers in smoking establishments. I will repeat this message over and over again in the hope that people will realize that the suspension of individual rights for the greater good is unjustified and logically inconsistent. David Shove wrote: > This is a misrepresentation and slander of most people's > motives to want to ban smoking. My own motive is SELFISH - > I (ME, D.S.) don't want PERSONALLY to have to put up with > godawful smoke. Personal. Selfish. For me. I want it for ME. Well, I've found an honest man, that's refreshing (pun intended). I agree with Mr. Shove that his wanting every single restaurant and bar in Minneapolis to be smoke free, regardless if he would ever actually, in his lifetime, visit them is indeed selfish. Andy Driscoll wrote: > What Mr. Atherton always wants is no government whatsoever, no public > control of any private enterprise, and that means no dictation of public > health moves to keep the air breathable. What never seems to occur to > libertarians is that Minnesota and Minneapolis have for two centuries > regulated private business by insisting on licensure to keep food > uncontaminated, and facilities and toilets clean and as free of disease > as humanly possible. I had no idea that Mr. Driscoll was a profiler who knows my motives better than I do myself or perhaps by ascribing a particular agenda to me it helps support his argument more that it accurately reflects my position. > Would Mr. Atherton prefer a solid dose of salmonella for the same > customers who breathe the poison others create with their stogies > and cigarettes? Without other health regulations, that's what we'd get. As does Mr. Shove, Mr. Driscoll assumes it is his right to project his values on others regardless of whether he would ever be personally impacted. I have clearly stated that I support government regulation and consumer protection, but I believe that government's role should be primarily informative and regulatory only when absolutely necessary. I think that it is generally sufficient that the government provide clear and explicit warnings of the dangers faced by consumers. I don't think that it's the role of government to protect us from our own unwise informed decisions (for the oblivious reason that such action justifies any restriction on freedom). Therefore, I believe that making it clear (pun intended) that exposure to second smoke *might* be dangerous fulfills the responsibility of government. As to the dangers of salmonella, I will apply an analogy. There is a fish that many people love to eat in Japan that is poisonous if not properly prepared. I assume that it would be illegal to serve this fish in the U.S., but I think that it should be legal if customers are clearly informed of the risks. If for some strange reason people want to suffer a solid dose of salmonella that should be their decision as long as the dangers are clear. On the other hand, the Firestone/Explorer fiasco should have resulted in criminal charges and prison time because some individuals intentionally hid known dangers from consumers. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
