I oppose this ban, not because I smoke in bars and resteraunts, because I don't. And I certainly don't oppose this ban because I believe that "no one but Tester, et al, should determine what it is the best interest of the public and its health." On the contrary. If anything, I resent the self-appointed social engineers who are constantly trying to "determine what it is the best interest of the public and its health" without regard to the rights of informed individuals to make that determination for themselves.
I oppose this ban because in a free society, if you disapprove of people smoking and drinking in bars, or are otherwise engaged in other unhealthy behavior, the prudent thing would be to avoid such establishments, either as a patron or as an employee, and let the people engaged in those behaviors, however misguided, to do so without the interference of well-meaning but unappreciated social regulators.
Dennis Tester Mac-Groveland
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Driscoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "St. Paul Discuss" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [StPaul] Smoking Ban Fodder
Normally I'd not bite on Mr. Tester's inflammatory, over-the-top bait, but
I'll go this far: shall we ban public tobacco use altogether? Absolutely. Do
I have the power to "declare it illegal?" Of course not, no one does. Would
I work for a policy that does? Absolutely.
Let's understand something here and now: tobacco use in public spaces is
legal only because of 250 years of economic tradition and undue influence on
the political machinery of government that has kept it so. No decision has
ever been made that this junk is good for us and that's the reason it's so
integral to our culture.
Legality doesn't make anything "right." It only makes it legal. Not all law
is moral or ethical and much of our law is twisted and distorted and
selectively enforced to favor the powerful over the powerless as it is.
Tester and his colleagues in the libertarian movement see government only as
the "nanny-state" - and that no one but Tester, et al, should determine what
it is the best interest of the public and its health. In fact, this is a
nation of laws that are supposed to have been written to protect us all - as
a a society, as a community, not as bunch of free-ranging individualists who
would rather have anarchy than any government at all, so much do they hate
being told what to do.
We have a collective responsibility under the constitution to promote the
public welfare and secure liberty - not for those who just want to go off
and do as they wish and damn the weak, the poor and sick, but for the whole
of a nation - and that includes the liberty to be free to enter and work in
public spaces without fear of harm to their health.
Dirt is legal, Mr. Tester, but it's banned by health authorities in
restaurants and bars under penalty of closure. Legal substances like meat
and other perishables become illegal if those same entities allow them to
spoil and be served. Liquor is legal until you abuse it, then the next drink
becomes illegal if it intoxicates you to the point of impairment.
It's legal to pollute the air. Is it right? Is it ethical? Certainly not. It
is the public's and the government's responsibility to curtail the immoral
and unethical fouling of air and water even if it's all happening under a
"legal" permit that fails as a tool of enforcement by those responsible for
holding permitees accountable.
You apparently didn't have the gumption to read the article accompanying my
previous post, because there you would see the clear and convincing evidence
that your claims of political suicide over smoking bans is just so much
smoke blowing up the rears of policymakers from bar-owners and tobacco
companies and that the experience of New York, Massachusetts, Florida and
California has been literally the opposite. It's become a non-issue so fast
it makes your head swim, and even the crustiest of opponents in the industry
who spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars fighting it are not
ho-humming it all over the place. Why? Because no only has not a single
instance of their dire warnings come to fruition, but the exact opposite has
come to pass: greater health and prosperity for all.
So, Mr. Tester, go smoke your brains out in your Thanksgiving retreat. Nobody'll get you there and none of us will care - unless your unwelcome pollution penetrates the public confines of a licensed establishment. Meanwhile, the rest of us will work to make public spaces safe for patrons and workers and they'll all be the happier for it.
And the bar-owners fears that their smoke-induced doubling of profitable alcohol sales will be shattered by the reality of increased patronage and profits.
Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 -- Visit our weblog: http://bumpasblog.blogspot.com
From: "Dennis Tester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:31:48
-0600 To: "Andy Driscoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "St. Paul Discuss"
<[email protected]> Subject: Re: [StPaul] Smoking Ban Fodder
Since about 25% of the population smokes, and well over 50% of bar patrons
smoke, it seems to me that at least this portion of the people don't buy the
politically-motivated charge that somehow tobacco only exists because of a
conspiracy of like-minded capitalists. I happen to use tobacco in a
thanksgiving ritual whenever I go to Bear Butte. Do you want to ban that too?
Afterall, the wind might blow some tobacco flakes from the alter into the face
of someone standing nearby. We can't have that.
I challenge the anti-tobacco zealots that if they really cared so much about
the "little people" and their health, to work zealously to get tobacco totally
banned. Seriously. If you can justify the ban of tobacco in public places
for health reasons, then you have a moral obligation to declare the substance
illegal. Name another legal substance that's banned in public places for
health reasons.
And why you're at it, you could make the same nanny-state health claims and
arguments against alcohol as you do against tobacco. Afterall, sober people
are killed by drunk drivers every day proving that alcohol use is also
dangerous to innocent bystanders. Innocent and poorly paid waitresses and
waiters are forced, FORCED mind you, to breath the foul-smelling second-hand
breath of intoxicated customers, suffering unknown harm to their unborn
fetuses and to their sperm counts, not to mention the physical harm these poor
workers are forced to risk by being around intoxicated people with
unpredictable behavior. And so if the use of tobacco can be banned in bars,
the argument can be made that alcohol should also be banned in bars. I'm
certain that an enterprising lawyer could shop for and find a judge who'd
agree.
To me, the most interesting part of this whole debate (since I don't frequent
these unhealthy bars), is that the demographic that smokes the most and who
frequent bars the most are blue-collar, working-class people and minorities.
Mark my words, certain politicians (if you get my non-acerbic drift) will rue
the day if a total ban passes.
I agree: Call your senators and reps. Find their numbers/addresses at: <http://www.leg.state.mn.us>
Dennis Tester Mac-Groveland
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005
_____________________________________________ 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/
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005
_____________________________________________
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/
