On 10/31/05 9:20 AM, Michael Atherton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Snyder wrote:
The fact that secondhand smoke may be harmful is completely relevant.
The reason it's so is because of what Atherton snipped out of
my comment, which was my right to do something that has no
impact on
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
I started this thread to point out that Porter's
likely didn't close due to the smoking ban--that's it.
The course has been changed and I think run into a
brick wall. The best idea that resulted from this
thread so far was Dan's suggestion that we ban meat
too. Or did I slip off that darned
Andy Driscoll wrote:
AGAIN! It is not what you're doing to yourself by smoking,
but the violence you are doing to others that is unacceptable.
Assuming that I am doing violence to others against their
will is another FALSE assumption!
It is not always a choice to be around others whose
The fact that secondhand smoke may be harmful is completely relevant.
The reason it's so is because of what Atherton snipped out of my comment,
which was my right to do something that has no impact on you...
If you don't believe your action of smoking impacts me, then logic would
follow that
Congratulations to Michael on his persistence and his logic.
Mike Hohmann
Linden Hills
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Michael Atherton
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 7:00 AM
To: mpls@mnforum.org
Subject: RE: [Mpls] On the smoking ban
Subject: RE: [Mpls] On the smoking ban and Porter's
snip
I place more value on an individual's right to make their own
decisions about their lungs/life/health. Again, no one is
exposed to secondhand smoke who doesn't make an explicit
choice to do so.
What people fail to see
By Michael's logic, there should be no health department regulations re
sanitation in restaurant kitchens, right?
good try but i would say no. the reason being is it isn't easy for
the public to know the sanitation conditions of restaurant kitchens
but it is easy to know if the bar allows
Andy Driscoll wrote:
Once again, you miss the point. The core argument here is
between what the majority of citizens consider ³public²
and others consider ³private.²
I haven't missed the point. It happens to be a
continual pain in my aspirations for a just
society. Majority rule is not
To me, the foundation of this disagreement lies with whether exposure to
secondhand smoke is actually harmful, as evidenced by Atherton's comment on
What can be more inalienable than my right to do something that has no
impact on you...
Driscoll and folks on his side of the argument, including
Mark Snyder wrote:
To me, the foundation of this disagreement lies with whether
exposure to secondhand smoke is actually harmful,...
False! The fact that secondhand smoke maybe harmful
is irrelevant! We all choose to do things that are
harmful from the perspective of others. The things
AGAIN! It is not what you're doing to yourself by smoking, but the violence
you are doing to others that is unacceptable. It is not always a choice to
be around others whose smoke is harming other people. Smoke your brains out
- in your bathroom, or some such place. Not in the face of children and
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Andy Driscoll wrote:
AGAIN! It is not what you're doing to yourself by smoking, but the violence
you are doing to others that is unacceptable. It is not always a choice to
be around others whose smoke is harming other people. Smoke your brains out
Some have already done
Mark Snyder wrote:
To me, the foundation of this disagreement lies with whether
exposure to secondhand smoke is actually harmful,...
Michael Atherton
Prospect Park
replied
False! The fact that secondhand smoke maybe harmful
is irrelevant! We all choose to do things that are
harmful from
I like an occasional smoke with a beer. However, I can't justify the
satiation of my desire to smoke as an excuse not to give a crap about what I
am doing to the people around me. Yes, it is my choice to smoke and pollute
my lungs. But I am also polluting the air around me and the lungs of those
] On the smoking ban and Porter's
AGAIN! It is not what you're doing to yourself by smoking, but the
violence
you are doing to others that is unacceptable. It is not always a choice to
be around others whose smoke is harming other people. Smoke your brains
out
- in your bathroom, or some such place
Oh my, what a refreshing topic. So many slants
and perspectives that will cast new glistening light
to my wide open eyes and mind. Shine on you
declainming diamonds. How we all love you.
Jon Gorder
Cathedral Hill
Heidi wrote:
Furthermore, I would like to know how people can say that non-smokers had
the choice to stay away from places that allowed smoking. Before the ban,
how many such places were there? Not many I am guessing. What kind of a
choice is that?
Fifty. There were fifty bars in Minneapolis that
Yes., it's a yawner, now.
Andy Driscoll
Saint Paul
--
on 10/30/05 5:57 PM, Jon Gorder wrote:
Oh my, what a refreshing topic. So many slants
and perspectives that will cast new glistening light
to my wide open eyes and mind. Shine on you
declainming diamonds. How we all love you.
Anthony Thomas wrote:
Interesting anecdotebut how do you honestly expect to refute the stone cold
facts that it was the smoking ban which forced Cafe Di Napoli and the Olive
Garden to close shop in downtown Mpls?
I can't believe those two spots are included with a straight face. You can
A brief comment on that now famous list of 40 restaurants that has been
going on this week. When I hear statements like that an image pops into my
head of a former Wisconsin US Senator speaking before a womens group and
proclaiming he had a list of 57 card carryimg members of the Communist
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, ken bradley wrote:
Anthony Thomas wrote: Interesting anecdotebut how do you honestly
expect to refute the stone cold facts that it was the smoking ban which
forced Cafe Di Napoli and the Olive Garden to close shop in downtown
Mpls?
Historical question: were there
Once again, you miss the point. The core argument here is between what the
majority of citizens consider ³public² and others consider ³private.² The
law (and a majority of patrons) considers any retail operation, although
privately owned, a public accommodation for purposes of protecting public
: Andy Driscoll [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Minneapolis Issues mpls@mnforum.org
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Mpls] On the smoking ban and Porter's
The writer below continues to mix and match apples and oranges in order to
discredit any governmental action that protects
Interesting anecdotebut how do you honestly expect to refute the stone
cold facts that it was the smoking ban which forced Cafe Di Napoli and the
Olive Garden to close shop in downtown Mpls?
I can't believe those two spots are included with a straight face. You can
couch it by saying
On Oct 28, 2005, at 1:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting anecdotebut how do you honestly expect to refute
the stone cold facts that it was the smoking ban which forced Cafe
Di Napoli and the Olive Garden to close shop in downtown Mpls?
What's your evidence here?
Have Cafe di
David, I think you need to re-read the totality of the post you are
referencing. I took the stone cold fact part to be sarcasm. Later in the post
the writer says that including Di Napoli and Olive Garden on the list of 40
bars and restaurants hurts the arguments of the smoking ban opponents.
27 matches
Mail list logo
