On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Michael Atherton wrote: > 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.
Actually, from a purely selfish point of view, since I don't have to work in any of these places, I would have been happy with 80% of them smoke-free, to match the 80% of people who don't smoke. Or even a smaller percentage, so long as there was something not too long a drive away. But there weren't ANY non-smoking bars. 20% had 100% of the bars. And of course the 20% like it that way. I saw no concern of the 80% - we were told, if you don't like it, stay home. My way or the highway. And I saw the 100% as driven more by tobacco lobby money and propaganda, than by consumer preference. Non-smokers weren't even given a chance to prove their interest by patronizing a non-smoking bar. Just the way the tobacco lobby wanted it. Coffee houses don't get tobacco lobby money, and most of them have gone voluntarily to non-smoking. A few stayed smoking; I just didn't go to them. Had the bars been as free of lobby influence as the coffeehouses, I think we would have had a few to demonstrate our interest in them. Andy Driscoll reports that of the 150 smoking bars in the area, about 75 ar in StPaul. That's a lot. I look to see the tobacco lobby try to break and repeal the ban by dumping in loads of dollars to a few poster bars in StPaul. Big subsidies for bands, ads, promotions of all sorts; enuf to make the profits of the poster bars stunning, enuf to generate vast envy in al the other bars in the area, and have the bar owners in the streets and at the barricades, demanding smoking so that they too can get in on the potloads of tobacco lobby money. But if and when the ban is broken, big totacco will have little interest in bribing all the others the way they did with the first ones. If the ban is broken, it will be due to the undemocratic dollars of a manipulative industry of deceit. The tobacco lobby kept the bars 100% smoking, and they will if they can amke them 100% smoking again. Nothing to do with public opinion, or what most people want. Everything to do with what a few rich expoiters want, and can get with boatsloads of money. The way the rich do in almost all areas of life and government. Not what we want; what they can buy. --David Shove Roseville > > 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 > 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
