And in response to Mr. Halfhill's response: I understand the points being made. On one level, some of the points make intuitive sense. However, the logic at some points is a wee bit misleading. For example, the second sentence below states: "Actually no one is forced to patronize a business where they are likely to get sick from contaminated food or burned to death in a fire." While true, this sentence implies that nonsmokers are somehow forced to patronize businesses (smoky bars) where they are likely to get sick from smoke. But this is misleading. You see, no one is forced to patronize a business where they are likely to get sick from "second hand smoke." No one ever forced another person to enter a bar where they found the environment unpleasant or unhealthy (if they did, they should call the police). If one doesn't like the smoke in a bar, they are (or were, prior to March 31) free to patronize another establishment. For some reason the ability to move to a more pleasant environment was not a valid option to people prior to March 31. I (and a whole bunch of other people) figured out how to do that many, many years ago. Why citizens of Minneapolis couldn't figure that out is as much a mystery as Bigfoot.
In terms of the worker safety argument, like it or not, workers choose to work there. That's a fact. (Many of them are smokers anyways. I know this, I've worker in bars and restaurants, too.) To boil down the argument to unemployment versus "the risk of contracting heart disease, stroke or cancer" is hyperbolic and melodramatic. Workers have choices, just as patrons did (before the ban). If the ban is (was) truly an issue of worker safety, it's a half-hearted attempt. I would expect people like Mr. Halfhill to lobby their city council person on Monday about noise ordinances and long hours and mandated breaks and proper temperature in kitchens and all that. Keep us posted on the status of that lobbying. If such lobbying doesn't occur, I'm afraid the smoking ban will look like a ban of convenience for a handfull of people and not really about "worker safety" as it was touted. A better way to look at it is this: Pre-ban, workers and patrons had choices, they just didn't like the choices available. So a vocal group voluntarily abdicated to the city council their ability to make choices so they didn't have to make them. Rather than making tough choices, they'd rather not make any at all---- and have that codified into law so the rest of us can suffer similarly. That's a sad state of affairs. Mike Thompson Windom ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [Mpls] Smoking ban participation > > In response to Michael Thompson, I have pointed out previously on this list that similar arguments to his arguments against the smoking ban could be used against sanitation laws or fire codes. Actually no one is forced to patronize a business where they are likely to get sick from contaminated food or burned to death in a fire. Let those who don't mind incurring these risks patronize the unsanitary, fire trap establishments and those who don't can go elsewhere. > The reason why these arguments against sanitation and fire safety codes are unsound is the same reason why similar arguments against the smoking ban fail. People do not have a limitless number of places to choose from in deciding where to work and no one should have to choose between unemployment or exposing themselves to disease or burning to death in a fire. The average person with no specialized training in sanitary or fire codes should not be expected to do their own sanitation and fire inspections. > Similarly, no one should be forced to choose between unemployment and the risk of contracting heart disease, stroke or cancer. The same argument can be made against music so loud that employees risk hearing loss. A similar argument against high fat and other unhealthy foods being on the menu fail since employees are not forced to eat the food whereas they have no choice about breathing. > Robert Halfhill Minneapolis > > http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com > > http://www.thepen.us/e-fraud.html > > 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
