I have tried to stay out of this discussion, but Dennis says, " 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". The problem is, and what started this whole
dispute in St. Paul, was that when Bonfire Grille introduced smoking, in place
of the non-smoking Ciatti's, they refused to close their doors. They claimed a
"business right" to leave their doors open, so even if you had no intention of
going into Bonfire, you would get a blast of smoke going into Victoria Crossing
East.
If I wanted to avoid smoke, I would have had to avoid Cafe Latte, since I
always got a blast from Bonfire. I think I have written this before, but if
Dennis should be P.O.'ed at anybody, it should be with the owner's of Bonfire.
If they hadn't been so arrogant to begin with, defending their patrons right to
smoke, or by being civilized business owners, and simply agreeing to close
their doors, it would have never become an issue.
Dann Dobson
Summit Hill
Dennis Tester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My argument is no more over-the-top than the one advanced that this ban is
only opposed by bar owners and tobacco lobbyists.
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"
To: "St. Paul Discuss"
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" Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005
>> 14:31:48
>> -0600 To: "Andy Driscoll" , "St. Paul Discuss"
>> 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:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
_____________________________________________
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/
