[Mpls] Those damned statistics - ask and ye shall receive

[mpls-issues at andsoforth.com]

> Terrell Brown terrellbrown_mn at yahoo.com wrote:

> I don't think there is any question that this stuff is "capable of
> causing injury or death"

No. There is a question. Fact is, unless someone pokes you with the 
cigarette, you are hardly injured and certainly not dead as a result of 
smoking. 

I've already told you how I was exposed to prodigious quantities of this 
secondhand smoke on several occasions with no ill effects to be found. 
Normally toxins make people sick or die. It is only by abusing the 
definition of toxic that we can arrive at the conclusion that secondhand 
smoke is "toxic". 

Lots of things could be considered toxic by this definition. Sodium 
fluoride, for example. But the City puts that in my water! As I've said, 
even water is toxic, you can get sick from drinking too much. You can die 
from inhaling it. In fact, when it comes to inhalation, I'd rather breathe 
in tobacco smoke than water. 

People supporting this ban show an incredible willingness to bury their 
heads in the sand when asked to demonstrate real and persistent dangers from 
secondhand smoke of the type and quantity found in the situations this ban 
would affect. Personally I expect a much higher standard than this when 
freedom of association and choice are at stake. While I personally would 
welcome a city full of smoke-free establishments I don't think this is the 
way to get there. The ends do not justify the means. 

You have no right to tell consenting adults what they may do behind closed 
doors when you're not around, as far as I'm concerned. But that is just what 
this proposed ban does. That you want to back up your anti-liberty proposal 
with shoddy science and poorly supported scare-mongering is just adding 
insult to injury. 

 -Michael Libby, Cleveland neighborhood,
 www.andsoforth.com