Michael Thompson wrote:
... in response to this post, somebody is gonna post a whole bunch
of stuff about food safety and water safety and OSHA and on and on and
on. Fine.
[KB responds] Indeed. If you're going to be consistent in your
arguments, you also have to argue that the city shouldn't inspect food
preparation in commercial or other establishments and that people should
just stop eating in places that turn out to make them sick or worse.
That's how your argument about workers finding non-smoking environments
to work in translates.
But to bring the issue back to tobacco, I say this: if tobacco is the
"public health" threat it is (and I believe it is, seriously), let's
ban it. Outright. Of course that'll never happen, because politicians
(government) makes a TON of money off smokes.
[KB responds] That applies nationally, not locally. To bring it back
to Minneapolis -- which doesn't make tons of money off tobacco in any
way you seem to mean and doubtless can't legally ban it, anyway -- the
city council did what it could do. It has some jurisdiction over public
health, so it exercised its authority over that area in banning what IS
a public health threat: tobacco SMOKING. The council didn't ban chewing
or other non-smoke-producing forms of tobacco usage, did it?
-- K e n B e a r m a n , Kingfield neighborhood, 11-1
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
