Michael Atherton had written: > 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?
Jim Bernstein responded: > Because restaurants and bars are public spaces! For the > umpteenth time, bars and restaurants are licensed facilities > in Minneapolis; they have to conform to public health standards > which are established by the city. The owner does not have the > authority to determine which public health standards he/she wishes > to abide by! Mark Snyder pondered: > 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. Generally, governments feel the necessity of providing a justification for the imposition of force on individuals. Throughout history they have provided a variety of justifications: spiritual purity, moral turpitude, and so on. Although such rationalizations may seem innocuous enough to us in the 21st century, they have been used to justify all types of atrocities in the past. Today, rather than salvaging the souls or the morality of our fellow citizens, we justify our impositions on them in the name of public health. Although not quite as open to interpretation as spiritual purity or moral turpitude, public health, if liberally interpreted (no pun intended), can be used to ban any number of activities that involve what we normally consider to be acceptable risks. Professional sports for instance. There is a non-zero probability that you can be seriously injured or killed while attending any number of sporting events, from foul balls at Twins games to crashes at stock car races. We could ban any number of personal sports because of risks to participants or bystanders: rock climbing, sky diving, bicycling, etc. A number of years ago there was serious discussion about banning slam dancing as a public health hazard. The hegemony of morality into the realm of public health is exemplified by the redefining of the physical abuse of women as a public health epidemic (for some reason the physical abuse of men doesn't qualify). > This is issue is not and has never been about "rights". It is a very > simple question about whether or not second hand tobacco smoke in > enclosed places poses a hazard to people. If such a hazard > exists, then communities are free to take action to eliminate or > at least minimize the hazard. Right-wing "breath" squads are not dragging people from their homes and imprisoning them in smoky bars and restaurants. People go to these places by choice. There is no such thing as stealth cigarette smoke which injures people unawares (cigarette smoke stinks). People make knowledgeable and often stupid choices. It's their right or it damn well should be. So this issue IS really about "rights" and always has been. Maybe it's not about specific legal rights, but it is about the moral right of self-determination and individual choice. Social pressure and customer preference have been pervasive factors in the reduction of exposure to cigarette smoke in restaurants. They can continue to be. There is no need for the imposition of blanket legal prohibitions. > The evidence from myriad studies done about this issue is > compelling and persuasive to virtually every public health professional > and agency in the U.S. Communities therefore, are responding and > implementing ordinances and laws to protect the public by eliminating > second hand smoke in public places - including bars and restaurants. There is a myriad of studies about skin cancer that are compelling and persuasive to virtually every public health professional and agency in the U.S.: sunshine is a public health hazard. Yet, you are not advocating the imposition of burkas or sunscreen. Bottom line: I think that adults should be able to gather in public spaces and partake in pursuits that you and the society may find dangerous or offensive, as long as they don't impact other people against their will. You don't. 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
