[Mpls] Candidates who Question or Equivocate on Smoking Ban are Defeated?

[Psurmak at aol.com]

It never ceases to amaze me how frequently people play it  fast-and-loose 
with the fundamental right to privacy when it suits  their point of view.  We see 
it all the time on both sides of the  fence, whether the debate is about 
abortion, gun control, gay rights, or (in  this case) smoking.  Every time someone 
doesn't like something,  they steer away from the privacy issue and invoke 
"health  concerns", or "Christian morality", or "separation of church & state",  
or whatever arguement fits the moment.  
 
The fact is, the choice to smoke tobacco is a right of privacy because it  is 
a legal substance, and will remain so until the government/society/human  
race declare it illegal.  Not unlike a woman's right to exercise  control over 
her own pregnancy, an individual's right to own a gun, or a  person's right to 
express their own sexual orientation, smoking is a choice all  adults are free 
to make....and legislating the closure of all public venues to  do so impinges 
on this freedom (imagine passing a law closing all Planned  Parenthood 
clinics!!??).
 
I stand by my earlier position that a partial ban, as stipulated, is  a 
reasonable compromise that gives all parties the freedom and choices they  deserve. 
 Those who don't want to smoke or be exposed to second-hand smoke  will have 
the majority of public venues to choose from, while those who wish to  smoke 
will have a place to go as well.  Under these circumstances, anybody  claiming 
they were "coerced" to be around smoke in a public place should  seek therapy, 
or self-assertiveness training...or something, because  their problem has 
nothing to do with tobacco smoke.
 
Stenglein is right on this issue, and I say this grudgingly as I don't  agree 
with a lot of his politics, but either you believe in an individual's  right 
of privacy, or you don't....I think anyone who waffles back and forth  to suit 
their own convenience or comfort is being dishonest about  something.
 
Additional note:  Please don't confuse my statements about privacy  rights 
with a government's responsibility/obligation to regulate certain things  and 
activities.  I believe the government should  regulate abortions to ensure that 
they are safe, just as  they regulate the food supply; I also believe that gun 
ownership &  distribution should be regulated and controlled much more 
tightly than it  is.  Responsible oversight does not preclude an individual's right 
to  privacy.

Peter Surmak
Linden  Hills