Where's James Madison when you need him?
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John
Harris)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Fratto)
orum.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
07/29/2004 08:46 Subject: ```Re: [StPaul] The Power of
Boycott
AM
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/
_____________________________________________
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/
