On 8/2/05 4:12 PM, "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jim Bernstein wrote: > >> To quote Michael Atherton: ". . . which is why I spend so much time >> defending the rights of others to make their own choices as long as >> they don't inflict their choices on other people." >> >> Smoking in enclosed public spaces is a near perfect example of >> inflicting the smoker's choice on other people. The decision to >> prohibit it respects the right of a community to protect >> public health. > > There are lots of things that are done in public spaces that I > think are potentially offensive or unhealthy, so I don't choose to > enter these public spaces. That's my choice and yours, but > I don't personally feel the need to prohibit others from choosing > to participate in these activities. With slight modifications your > argument would justify the prohibition of any number of > activities, among them music, art, dancing, sports, driving, etc. > > I'm sure that there are many bars in Minneapolis that you've never > patronized and will never patronize. I find your desire to ban > smoking in these establishments morally offensive and dictatorial. > > At most, your argument would require the isolation of smokers, > not the prohibition of smoking. As I have pointed out many > times previously: Vancouver, B.C. has required the construction > of smoking rooms by bars that want to allow patrons to smoke. > These smoking rooms protect public health. Other than satisfying > your own sense of morality, what further objectives does a ban > provide for? Michael has brought up the smoking rooms suggestion previously in this forum and one answer for why this idea hasn't caught on is that the establishment owners aren't interested in it. And since they aren't, nobody else, aside from apparently Michael, is interested in it, either. >From what I've seen, the primary objection to the smoking ban for most bar and/or restaurant owners is not that it's "morally offensive and dictatorial" but because it creates an unlevel playing field unless the ban is statewide. The smoking room suggestion further tilts the playing field against the smaller establishments that do not have the space to construct a smoking room and so would instead have to ban smoking altogether. So rather than having establishments in one city following tighter restrictions than neighboring cities, like we have now, you'd have establishments within the same neighborhood or sometimes even across the street from one another playing by different rules. Aside from that, I'm kind of curious what "slight modifications" could be made to Jim's argument that would justify banning dancing, music, art, sports or driving. We're talking here about smoking in an enclosed facility, which means that the smoke dissipates more slowly than outside, even with ventilation systems in place. So basically, if I stand near someone smoking, I'm getting exposed to some rather unhealthy stuff. I'm not sure how that applies to dancing, music or art. The closest example I could think of that fits is if I stood in a bar near folks who were fighting or roughhousing, I could inadvertently be struck. But then, most bars don't allow fighting or roughhousing, either. I guess Michael would find that morally offensive and dictatorial as well? Mark Snyder Windom 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
