[Mpls] Re: smoke or drink

[Michael Atherton]

Paul Skrbec wrote:

>  While I agree that you have a right to make your argument - it is
>  riddled with inaccurate half-truths. 

My point was that both my "argument" and the smoking ban
arguments are riddled with inaccurate half-truths.  The most 
oblivious inaccurate half-truth perpetuated by anti-smoking 
advocates is that smokers and non-smokers cannot share the 
same venues when I know there is fully functional technology
to prevent secondhand smoke from affecting non-smokers and
employees. 

In case there are others who didn't catch it,  my "argument"
about gay marriage was a rhetorical device, not a position I 
support.

>  My statement in support of the smoking ban was based upon my 
>  personal experiences. I started smoking when I was 12 years old. 
>  By age 15, I was a pack a day smoker. I'm 34 now and have quit 
>  twice. Once, I quit for 2 years & the second time I quit for 1 
>  year. BOTH times that I started smoking again were because I was 
>  in a bar - surrounded by temptation. 
>  
>  Much like any other addiction, it takes much more than will-power to
>  quit. It takes support from family and friends. It takes a change in
>  lifestyle (not going to places where there are triggers). It takes
>  support of others saying "your choice to quit a habit that is bad for
>  you is a good and courageous thing". I believe that this smoking ban
>  does a lot to say to people that are trying to quit or 
>  trying to stay an ex-smoker, that society says "good job".

I will acknowledge that quitting addictions may often require more 
than will just will-power (although not necessarily), however,
no amount of external pressure (other than physical restraint) 
can make an addict quit without will-power.  My point is that
requiring other people to accommodate your need for secondary
supports is an unreasonable intrusion on their choices.  And most
importantly, using your weaknesses as a justification to limit the 
choices of others, is a universal rationale for restricting anything.

>  As to your argument about a ban on fast food in order to go 
>  on a diet.  Well, can you explain to me how my ingesting a 
>  fatty Big Mac could possibly have an affect outside of my body? 
>  Studies have concretely shown that second-hand smoke can affect 
>  the health of non-smokers. I know of no such study that shows 
>  Burger King fries I eat are going to somehow kill off my neighbor.

This position assumes that there is no way to prevent non-smokers
from the effects of secondhand smoke, which I have already pointed
out is fallacious.  If I really wanted to reach (which I don't) I
could make the argument that there is a non-zero probability of 
being killed by someone having a heart attack due to the 
scientifically proven link between heart disease and fatty foods.
For example, an airline pilot has a heart attack during takeoff
which kills 300 people and it was later proved in court that the
clogging of his arteries was directly due to his 20 year 
consumption of Big Macs and fries at the MSP MacDonald's and that 
the airline was negligent for failing to warn passengers and screening 
the pilot for heart problems. NOTE: I don't consider this a
valid argument for banning fast food! Although it might be a
valid argument for banning pilots with heart conditions. A similar 
argument would not be valid for banning pilots from smoking when they
are not flying.

Here's another scenario, I take the LRT downtown and stop in at
my favorite coffee shop and indulge in a brandy-espresso, 
and marijuana cigarette (grown on site).  Other than the fact
you are a recovering marijuana addict who might relapse
because you have to drive past the coffee shop on your way
to work, who is harmed here?  You are free to assume that I
used a smoke containing room in which employees were not 
required to provide service.

Given the difficulty of explaining that the same logical
arguments for the smoking ban allow justify the restriction
of any type of behavior, I am beginning to think that most 
people are similar to Mr. Shove, or George W., who seem to 
believe that their selfish interests and the power to 
implement them are the only necessary justifications.
A sad commentary on the state of American politics.

Liz Greenbaum wrote:

>  As a slim vegetarian I would like to go on record to say 
>  that I have not in the least been affected by second-hand 
>  fast food by my neigbors, or even the few times I have taken 
>  my own children. So, unless research finds otherwise, I do 
>  not see this as a health risk to myself or others in the 
>  neighborhood or even within the confines of fatty food 
>  establishments. 

Once again (sigh), here is an example of complete denial
that Vancouver, BC has been using smoking rooms for years
without any major problems, fully protecting the health
of children, non-smokers, and employees. It's NOT about
health it's about forcing your values on others.  Once
again, I can make a similar argument, as do the smoking ban
advocates, as to why you and your children should be forced 
to eat lean meat.  Both arguments will have similar flaws. 
People should have the right to make their own choices as
long they don't directly impact others' right to do the
same.

Michael Atherton
Prospect Park