-------------------------------------------------- REMINDER: Only 2 Posts Per Day Per Person --------------------------------------------------
on 5/8/04 12:00 PM, Andrew Hine wrote: > PS Cigarette smoke not only stinks, but it contains deadly components that > cannot be detected by the human nose (I think I might be making that up, > though...). As we discover in the cave, CO is deadly and odorless. Such > is most likely the case with certain West End emissions - smelly things > might not be indicative of deadly things, but deadly things that you don't > smell will certainly kill you. In fact, you are absolutely correct, Andrew; you're making nothing up. In addition to all of the other damaging substances in smoke, carbon monoxide, the same odorless, colorless, deadly gas that kills people breathing car exhaust fumes, pours off the burning end of a lit cigarette or cigar and is inhaled by everyone around them � not just the smoker. In essence, smokers are slowly poisoning themselves *and* others within breathing distance of the smoke containing them all. Not quite manslaughter, but close. Smoke may or may not repel people within smelling distance of its source, but it's not the smell that kills and or injures your innards, it's the gaseous nicotine that addicts you and the liquefied (cooled) poisons that attach themselves to your lungs and throat after entering in gas form through the mouth and nose. Take a look at the increasingly dark brown film that covers windows and walls in a repeatedly smoke-filled room and you'll see the same accumulation of crap that is added to your internal tissues whether you smoke yourself or are frequently in the presence of smoke - even for very short periods of time, we now learn. That's why this ban is essential - to the public health. It intrudes on no one's right to smoke, only on their ability to create a poisonous atmosphere for workers who can't escape it and others in the rooms - the bars and restaurants, including so-called "non-smoking" areas where you still can't escape it. Charles Senkler, co-owner of Fern's, is quoted as cynically suggesting that, with this proposed ban, "his friend," Dave Thune, is attempting payback to Mayor Kelly for Kelly's veto of a proposed limit on local stadium funding passed by the council weeks ago. Well, maybe. Politicians do that sort of thing, unfortunately. But I was part of the effort informing the press about this proposed ban Wednesday morning and I talked with Dave Thune's dad off to the side as he struggled to look normal, gasping for air through his emphysema, which this writer also has, both of us as a result of our former addictions to nicotine. It is disingenuous in the extreme for Senkler to subvert support by claiming political payback when Thune (and his family) know full well the upshot of first- and second-hand smoke on the public's health. Our lives are shortened and rather insufferable when our lungs have deteriorated to such a degree. Those who want government to butt out of everything will rail on us, make fun of the effort and question the birthright and motives of we who believe this to be good, not only for our own health, but that of our children and the city as a whole. All of Tom Swift's rightwing sarcasm, all Charles Senkler's cynicism, all of the libertarians' screams in favor of "individuals' rights" being stripped from their lives will never change us or the reasons this smoking ban must go into effect - to protect the public health. Let smokers smoke alone, perhaps; they simply do not have a right to foist their poison on restaurant workers and other patrons. Senkler wants us all to believe a smoking ban will drive him and other places out of business. First of all, this is simply not true. The evidence from all points east and west where smoking bans have been enacted report a general increase - often a doubling - in patronage and profits for those places. New York City (Manhattan), California, Florida and many local town and cities - all have hailed the change. Smoke-free establishments have opened themselves up for business to the other 75% of the population that finds smoke a lousy atmosphere in which to eat - and, yes, even drink. Saving the bar businesses that might be hurt is not the business of the public or the City Council. Their job is larger, more important that a couple of bars and/or restaurants. It's the well-being of the public at-large and it's a long overdue focus for politics to set aside the undue influence of organized lobbyists for the industry and protect the public. Whether it's truly courageous of Thune to advance this I'm not entirely sure. But he should be truly applauded for taking this initiative to the people and his colleagues, in the process challenging some very powerful economic interests. Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
