Mark Snyder wrote: > No, it doesn't necessitate the assumption that I have a right to > ban whatever might have an effect on my health.
If you leave off my stipulation that you can only ban things that effect you involuntarily, then I find your right to ban whatever might possibly have an effect on your health, bizarre in the extreme. It would allow you to ban sex outside of marriage because you might possibly become infected by a STD. Mr. Snyder's position is something that I'd more likely expect to come from the future Bush Supreme Court! > What it does necessitate is that the burden for changing > behavior should fall on the person who is creating a problem, > not the person who is affected by it. > > As most of us learned in high school civics, the saying is > "your fist ends where my face begins," not "your face ends > where my fist begins" First, it allows you to dictate what another person's "problem" is. Secondly, you have to explicitly carry out series of actions so that the "problem" that you have now defined has an effect on you. To use the fist/face analogy, you redefine fist to mean bump, and then you walk into the person, so that they have bumped you. > This is why we have noise ordinances in response to loud > parties, loud "boom cars" and so on rather than tell those > affected to simply get some ear plugs or move if they don't > like the noise. This example is not the same. A person sitting in the Amsterdam coffee shop smoking a joint has no effect on anyone outside. You have to enter the coffee shop to be affected. > This is why we have pollution control laws rather than just > tell neighboring residents to deal with it or move if they > don't like what the manufacturing plant next door is sending > out the stacks or discharging into the river. Once again, the manufacturing plant has a *direct* effect on residents. They don't have to do anything to be affected. > This is why we have traffic laws and now, red light cameras, > rather than just tell pedestrians and other drivers that they > are on their own. Or is it supposed to be my fault if I get hit > by some crazy driver because I made the "overt decision" to take > a walk? Walking by the Amsterdam coffee shop and being hit by a driver is different than DECIDING to walk into the coffee shop when you KNOW that your health maybe negative impacted. Walking into the path of an oncoming car, even in a crosswalk, is not legal in Minnesota. So do you want to ban driving to eliminate the possibility that you might be injured because you WANT to walk into the paths of oncoming cars? This is what is analogous to the smoking ban. You have to WANT to be exposed to secondhand smoke. > I could go on, but hopefully, reasonable folks get the picture at > this point. In virtually every case where personal freedoms run up > against public health, it's going to be public health that wins, > and rightly so. I would hope that *reasonable* folks would *realize* that there are serious flaws in Mr. Snyder's argument and that valid conclusions do not follow from false premises. 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
