It never ceases to amaze me how frequently people play it fast-and-loose with the fundamental right to privacy when it suits their point of view. We see it all the time on both sides of the fence, whether the debate is about abortion, gun control, gay rights, or (in this case) smoking. Every time someone doesn't like something, they steer away from the privacy issue and invoke "health concerns", or "Christian morality", or "separation of church & state", or whatever arguement fits the moment. The fact is, the choice to smoke tobacco is a right of privacy because it is a legal substance, and will remain so until the government/society/human race declare it illegal. Not unlike a woman's right to exercise control over her own pregnancy, an individual's right to own a gun, or a person's right to express their own sexual orientation, smoking is a choice all adults are free to make....and legislating the closure of all public venues to do so impinges on this freedom (imagine passing a law closing all Planned Parenthood clinics!!??). I stand by my earlier position that a partial ban, as stipulated, is a reasonable compromise that gives all parties the freedom and choices they deserve. Those who don't want to smoke or be exposed to second-hand smoke will have the majority of public venues to choose from, while those who wish to smoke will have a place to go as well. Under these circumstances, anybody claiming they were "coerced" to be around smoke in a public place should seek therapy, or self-assertiveness training...or something, because their problem has nothing to do with tobacco smoke. Stenglein is right on this issue, and I say this grudgingly as I don't agree with a lot of his politics, but either you believe in an individual's right of privacy, or you don't....I think anyone who waffles back and forth to suit their own convenience or comfort is being dishonest about something. Additional note: Please don't confuse my statements about privacy rights with a government's responsibility/obligation to regulate certain things and activities. I believe the government should regulate abortions to ensure that they are safe, just as they regulate the food supply; I also believe that gun ownership & distribution should be regulated and controlled much more tightly than it is. Responsible oversight does not preclude an individual's right to privacy.
Peter Surmak Linden Hills 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
