In a message dated 7/29/2004 9:04:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, John Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>This tells me that if the above it true, either people are impatient enough that they >would endanger their health (given you believe that 2nd hand smoke is dangerous) in >order not to have to wait another 20 minutes. �it could mean that >people don't believe that the danger is that real. I am always impressed with how in these arguments grand generalizations take over. I'd guess that 95% of Americans know that a diet exclusively of Big Mac's would kill them yet, every once in awhile most of us suck one down. So, to say that people must not believe that there is a health hazard because they occasionally sit in the smoking section makes about as much sense as saying that Big Mac's are a health food. As to a boycott I am sure the anti-smokers could say that there already is a boycott and that there is an army of people waiting for the bars to go smoke free so that they can drop a ton of money on them. So, prove that wrong... Back to the economic issue of, if there were such an army then you would see more bars go totally smoke free, the problem is location, location, location. If a bar goes smoke free, and assuming it could get the word out, someone must still make the choice to go the distance to find the place, rather then just sitting in the non-smoking section of a place closer to where they want to be. Back to the Big Mac logic, why would they drive twenty miles to the smoke free place, when they can chose the Big Mac and sit in the smoky bar, just this one time? Or, staying on the same risk adverse logic, would the one person who has never driven over the speed limit give me a call? The current smoking laws are designed to accommodate smokers in public accommodations. The question is if their/our (I am a smoker)smoking is making it impossible for others to have access to or enjoy public accommodations and since the smoker can't stop his smoke from traveling into the non-smoker's space should the accommodation of the smoker take precedence over the accommodation of the non-smoker? Does the smoker have the right to smog up the air for all in the public accommodation? The Right to Be Rude, hmmm sounds like the next addition to the Bill of Rights. Chuck Repke Saint Paul _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ 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/
