AHA! It was bound to happen and it did! That old rhetorical hobgoblin "strict consistency" gets injected into the debate about smoking restrictions.
There is in some quarters (usually libertarian, sometimes with conservatives) a belief that if a policymaker does one thing, then it must do certain other things as well in order to be "strictly consistent". If the Minneapolis City Council prohibits smoking in bars and restaurants to protect public health generally or worker health specifically, it must also prohibit other things as well - to be "strictly consistent"! Mike Thompson suggested in another post some issues involving kitchen temperatures, mandated breaks, noise, and hours of work need to addressed if the City Council prohibited smoking in bars and restaurants. Now I don't know if any of those things need to be addressed, maybe they do, but passing an ordinance prohibiting smoking in those establishments does not require the city to enact ordinances about those issues! Thankfully, members of the Minneapolis City Council are not persuaded by that illogic. Recognizing that they have a responsibility to act when public safety or public health are concerned, they can evaluate problems and solutions independently as needed - without having to embrace the silly notion that you must do this if you do that to be "strictly consistent". If the decision by the City Council to prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants came down to "personal convenience for a handful of people" there would be no prohibition! The substantial evidence that second hand smoke is a potentially serious health hazard for patrons and especially workers, was the motivating and compelling issue. For the record, my favorite "strict consistency" line comes from the deceased former senator from Mississippi, James "Slippery Jim" Eastland who noted in 1962 that he would oppose any federal civil rights legislation because: "Now if you go giving the Negro some of those civil rights, next thing you know you'll be having to give them to everybody." Jim Bernstein Fulton -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Thompson Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 2:53 PM To: [email protected]; Jim McGuire Subject: Re: [Mpls] Smoking ban participation Anyway, like I said earlier, too, I trust you will be lobbying your city council person tomorrow about the noise and the heat and the late hours and the bad food alternatives and the like to help those people in the bar and restaurant industries who "have to take whatever job is offered to them." Anway, I got news fer ya. The world is full of people who "have to take whatever job is offered to them." Last I checked, that was part of life. Being knights in shining armor for the poor unwashed who, by no choice of their own, MUST work in smoky bars is disingenuous. It's so patronizing.......... talk about talking down to and about the very people you are wishing to protect. I haven't worked in a bar or restaurant for nearly 20 years, and I feel talked down to by the patronizing tone of Mr. McGuire's post. Well, that would be the ultimate outcome, wouldn't it? But considering this city and state has never been known to put a genie back in a bottle, I doubt it's gonna happen. Anyway, strict consistency in this case is apples and oranges and only applies if "worker safety" was the real, legitimate issue that the ban was built on. I say that "worker safety" was NOT the foundation of the ban, but was merely a convenient rallying cry for proponents who wanted to listen to jazzzzzzzzz....mannnnnn..... without having to change shirts when they got home. "Worker safety" is an argument akin to the "it's for the children!!!!" tripe that we hear all the time. Politicians, and ban proponents, have learned that if someone is not "for the children" they will be perceived as "against" the children. Same for the ban. If you don't support it, you're not for "worker safety"....... when all along it's been about nothing else than personal convenience for a handful of people who care little about market forces or if a few busboys lose their jobs. Mike Thompson Windom Life-long non-smoker 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.6 - Release Date: 4/11/2005 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
