Yes, it's hard to argue with Chuck, Erik. BUTT, there are dog parks and
topless beaches where people are allowed to do their thing, regulated by
Authority. Where's the harm in giving out smoking licenses? Banish us to
the edge of town if you must, but people want to go out and smoke and
drink. Face it. Just because "you" are such a fitness freak doesn't mean
I have to be just to suit you. You shouldn't have to breathe in my smoke,
I'll grant you that, but you can't just force consenting adults to stop
engaging in unhealthy activities. I can just visualize Andy running around
making sure all HIV victims put their condoms on properly, to put an end to
the public health risk.
My brother lived in a dry Arkansan county but there was still a drinking
club there. What about SALES of tobacco - do you propose banning that,
too? Will I be able to grow my own or not? We allow people to carry
handguns into all places unless the owner of the building hangs a sign
saying otherwise. If you don't want to accidentally get shot, don't go
into a shop that says "Guns Welcome Here" (or doesn't say "Guns
Prohibited"). Guns make me nervous and make me mentally ill so why don't
you ban those for me? And nuclear bombs and stuff. Everytime I hear
someone talking to an invisible person on a mobile phone, or even see
someone near me with a phone, ready to ring at any minute, I get mentally
iller. Not to mention all the electromagnetic radiation ruining my vibe.
Get rid of these things. Yes, I think it can be easily done, just take
everything down to Hwy 61.
See today's SPPP Opinion piece by Gollinger:
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/8705734.htm or
read it below. "What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't
always right."
Don't we need to be able to tell the Shriners "Come to the RiverCentre and
spend your millions in St. Paul. There's a smoking club down by the River
for your pleasure, and you can get there on your little go-carts. Please
weave carefully"?
I have piqued some more interest in the Mildred Pierce's Iron Lung Oxygen
and Wine Bar idea, but since more people seem interested in a smoking club,
I think we'll go that route instead.
This ain't Arkansas or the Bible Belt, Olav!
AMH
Cardinal "Strong Arm" Stretch Armstrong Avenue
"He looked so immaculately frightful
As he bummed a cigarette
Then he went off sniffing drainpipes
And reciting the alphabet"
Andrew M. Hine
Corporate Research Materials Laboratory
3M Center 201-1W-28
St. Paul MN
55144-1000
USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (651) 733-1070
Fax: (651) 737-5335
Lab 201-W110
>From St. Paul Pioneer Press, Twincities.com:
Posted on Thu, May. 20, 2004
Tyranny of the majority: Smoking ban is just plain wrong
MATTHEW J. GOLLINGER
As smoking bans have made their way into law across the country, one adage
has repeatedly come to mind: "What's right isn't always popular, and what's
popular isn't always right."
The St. Paul City Council is threatening to enact a smoking ban. The stink
of smoke in clothing, the haze obscuring the stage and sore throats induced
by second-hand smoke would be worries of the past. The majority recognizes
that these benefits would improve their bar/restaurant experience and
pledges their support to the ban.
These benefits can explain the popularity of the proposal, yet they do not
justify it. The proposed ban recklessly ignores the ability of the free
market to meet public demand. Moreover, free society demands that the
majority refrain from such selfish imposition.
Smoking bans make sense in the context of hospitals and airplanes, which
are areas of public necessity. Restaurants and bars, however, are
recreational venues, where no one is forced to be. The proposed ban is
grossly overbroad regulation, marginally increasing the convenience and
comfort of the nonsmoking majority by drastically reducing the rights and
privileges of the smoking minority. While the clothing of nonsmokers will
be good for an extra wearing between washes, smokers will be shooed outside
like dogs in the dead of winter.
This is pure selfishness by those favoring the ban. Currently, smokers and
nonsmokers are able to enjoy a drink/meal in their venue of choice, nearly
all of which have nonsmoking sections. Furthermore, nonsmokers are free to
patronize restaurants that have voluntarily banned smoking. If people truly
cared about the ban, such establishments would be inundated by those
seeking smoke-free hospitality. Extensive advertising would appear to
attract all of those nonsmoking dollars to smoke-free joints. The sponsors
of the ban seek to take away our ability to "vote with our feet/pocketbook"
by eliminating our ability to choose.
The smoking ban grows out of an ever-expanding brand of idiocy; that one
has a fundamental right to be free from inconvenience and offense. This
insanity is patently un-American. When we venture into the public, whether
it be a sidewalk, park, bar or restaurant, we subject ourselves to
experiencing the whole of our society. Frequently, our society is not a
perfect reflection of who we are, and it offends us. One might be offended
at the sight of a homosexual couple kissing, the hearing of a racial
epithet or the stench of someone who chooses not to shower.
Tough luck.
While we could outlaw physical contact by members of the same gender,
institute speech codes and make showering mandatory, we do not and should
not. We do not prohibit these activities because our selfish need for
convenience and personal comfort must not interfere with the basic freedoms
we enjoy as a society.
The most compelling argument in favor of the ban is that hospitality
employees are subjected to a dangerous work environment, polluted by
carcinogens. Let me be clear on this point: I do not care. Neither should
you.
I have worked as a bartender for the past four years. Though I do not
consider myself a smoker, I have inhaled more than my fair share of
second-hand smoke. Might this exposure cause long-term adverse health
effects? Yes. However, I have grown up in a time when even people living
under rocks are well aware that smoking is bad for you. Nevertheless, I
chose to work as a bartender and accepted the negative aspects of the job
along with the positive ones. As an adult in a free society, I weighed the
relevant pros and cons and made the choice to serve drinks. Nobody forced
me to get behind that bar, and I certainly don't need the City Council's
protection. The implicit condescension and elitism of the sponsors of the
smoking ban should infuriate all employees of the hospitality industry.
I like to think that we live in a relatively enlightened community that
respects the rights of those who are outnumbered. However, as the smoking
ban gains momentum, I am starting to believe that those who support the ban
do not care whether such a ban is right, so long as it is popular.
Gollinger is an attorney and part-time bartender.
_____________________________________________
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/
