Charlie Swope Ward 1 wrote > > The ban isn't intended to stop smokers from indulging > > their habits. It's intended to protect non-smokers in > > public places. then > John Harris > camden asked > Is this really true? If so, then why, as evidence we need a ban, have people > touted a reduction in smokers in NYC since their ban went into effect? Why all > the data on how bad smoking is, not for the recipient of 2nd hand smoke but for > smokers? Why are groups like MPAAT funding campaigns to get smoking bans > passed when they are to be dealing with smoking cessation? > I never viewed that as evidence that the ban was needed but as BENEFITS of a ban. Benefits in heightened awareness by the entire public that smoking really IS harmful and the less places they have to light up may help smokers in their own struggles to quit. In the meantime employees and patrons of the 82% who have chosen to live smoke-free will not be at the mercy of the 18% who haven't.
Steven M Nelson Willard Hay http://citizenshipchronicles.blogspot.com/ Get UP! Get OUT! & GET INVOLVED!!! _____________________________________________ 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/
