--- Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, objecting to my use of the term "ignorant," wrote:
"... the other side MIGHT just be mistaken. MIGHT just be clinging to a false set of assumptions based upon a world view that they have lived with for 40, 50, 60, or more years." Is there really much difference between the above and "ignorant?" I suppose I could have accused the bar owners of being "mistaken" and "clinging to a false set of assumptions" but would that really have made them feel better? If that's not "ignorance" then what word would better describe it? And John Harris raised a question about my belief that the smoking ban is intended to protect non-smokers, not get smokers to quit. I should have used the word "primarily." Of course a ban might have the wholly beneficial effect of encouraging some smokers to quit and, surely, it would help people who are trying to quit. However, the ban is primarily intended to keep smokers from spreading their filth to non-smokers (I suppose I'll now be taken to task for using a word like "filth" but who disputes that second hand smoke is just that). As for smoking ban advocates using data about the harm of smoking, it's not illogical to extrapolate from data establishing harm to smokers to harm to non-smokers exposed to the same smoke. One of the bartenders I spoke with in New York, a non-smoker, told me how much better he felt in the mornings since the smoking ban. The headaches and sore throats he used to wake up with had disappeared. Further, there's plenty of evidence that prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke is the equivalent of actually smoking yourself. Charlie Swope Ward 1 _____________________________________________ 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/
