[Mpls] RE: Smoking ban in Mpls -- great for fascism

[Michael Atherton]

Mark Snyder wrote:
 
> On 5/12/04 10:39 AM, "Michael Atherton" <athe0007 at umn.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Here is my argument.  If you are correct that it is not 
> > technologically or financially feasible, then offering 
> > businesses with permits costs little or nothing (because 
> > no one would be able to meet the necessary
> > standards).  If you are wrong, then why not allow businesses
> > to accommodate the desires of smokers?  Why project your values and
> > morality on others if they would do no harm?
> 
> I suppose it is technically feasible to design an HVAC system 
> that would accommodate smokers and non-smokers. But I think the 
> burden is being misplaced. As David said earlier, a smoker's 
> right to smoke stops at the non-smoker's bloodstream. So I think 
> it should be up to the smokers to figure out a way to enjoy their 
> habit without infringing on others. Maybe they could wear portable 
> fume hoods or a space suit or something. But it should be on them 
> to figure out how to do it, not the bar owner or the non-smoker.

I agree that the ultimate responsibility to prevent harm lies with 
smokers, but if businesses want to allow people to smoke in their 
establishments then it is their responsibility to provide unpolluted 
air.  I don't support a ban, I support regulation and enforcement.

For those of you who are genuinely concerned about the harm done
by second hand smoke, I suggest that we should be charging 
parents who smoke in close proximity to children with child
endangerment.  Not to mention pregnant women who smoke, drink,
or use drugs.

Michael Atherton
Prospect Park