[Mpls] On the smoking ban and Porter's

[Michael Atherton]

Andy Driscoll wrote:

> AGAIN! It is not what you're doing to yourself by smoking, 
> but the violence you are doing to others that is unacceptable. 

Assuming that I am doing violence to others against their
will is another FALSE assumption!

> It is not always a choice to be around others whose smoke 
> is harming other people. 

I'll agree that it is not always a choice to be around others
who smoke, examples are children of smokers and prisoners, 
but we are not discussing these situations, we are specifically 
discussing the case of bars and restaurants.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that we live in the
small town of Smokeout, Texas (pop. 152). There is only one 
bar/restaurant, Mike's Place, in town and it allows smoking.  
Andy finds this situation intolerable, but is he forced to be 
exposed to secondhand smoke? The answer undeniably is, no.  
Andy can lobby Mike to change his polices.  Andy can open 
his own bar/restaurant. Andy can drive or move to another 
town or state where he can frequent a bar/restaurant where 
smoking is prohibited, but in no way is Andy forced to be 
exposed to secondhand smoke.  These same arguments hold
if Andy is an employee of Mike's Place.  He is still not
forced to be exposed to secondhand smoke. 

This argument assuming violence against others against their
will is a false assumption.  

Steve Nelson wrote:

> "as no one else is affected by them involuntarily."  That 
> should include employees and other patrons of the 
> establishment. And even if you argue that adults choose 
> a restaurant where smoking occurs, exposing their children 
> is not the choice of the child and many of these restaurants 
> are considered "family" restaurants.

No one is forcing parents to expose their children to 
secondhand smoke.  If we use the example of Mike's Place
all the same arguments hold. There is no reason that the
parents have to take their children to Mike's Place.  
NOW, if you want to discuss the culpability of parents who 
knowingly expose their children to secondhand smoke that's 
another issue.  I'm sure that if a parent were to 
take their child into a bar while they were getting drunk, 
they could be charged with child neglect or endangerment 
(not to mention bringing a minor into such an establishment).  
If you want to pass laws that make it criminal for parents 
to expose children to secondhand smoke, I don't have a 
problem with that, but it's not the bars, restaurants, or
smokers who are responsible, it's the parents. If this
point isn't clear yet, consider how we would view parents 
who take their four year old child rock climbing, or 
motorcycle riding, or slam dancing, but this doesn't
mean that we should ban adults from engaging in these
pursuits in order to protect children.

Including children in the argument does not justify the
imposition of your values on adults without children.

Heidi Quezada wrote:

> I like an occasional smoke with a beer. However, I can't 
> justify the satiation of my desire to smoke as an excuse 
> not to give a crap about what I am doing to the people 
> around me. Yes, it is my choice to smoke and pollute
> my lungs. But I am also polluting the air around me and 
> the lungs of those around me. Whether they like it or not.

This is a personal decision that is commendable, but it also
doesn't justify your making the same decision for other
adults.  Once again you are imposing your values on other 
people who should have the freedom to make their choices.

> Do anti-smoking ban people really place such little value 
> on their fellow person's lungs/life/health that all they 
> care about is there ability to CHOOSE whether or not they 
> can poison everyone in the room with them vs. only themselves?

I place more value on an individual's right to make their own
decisions about their lungs/life/health.  Again, no one is 
exposed to secondhand smoke who doesn't make an explicit 
choice to do so.

What people fail to see is that the power and morality that
allows you to force your decisions on others, allows the 
imposition of any arbitrary decision on you as well.  That is, 
if you and the government decide that X is bad, then you eliminate
the right of people to make their own decisions.  This really 
drives me crazy, because so many people on this List who hold
Liberal views are aghast at the push by Evangelical 
Christians to force their values on their fellow Americans,
yet they have no qualms about using the same governmental
power to force Liberal values onto others.  "We have met
the enemy and they are us." Why can't we respect the rights 
of everyone to decide for themselves?

I'll try once more, consider the establishment in this
photo (http://www.umn.edu/~athe0007/Amsterdam.jpg).  
This is a coffee shop in the red light district of Amsterdam.  
If you enlarge it enough you might be able to see the marijuana
plants growing in the window.  If you so choose, you can stop
in have a cup of coffee and smoke a marijuana cigarette. If
you were to do so, who is harmed against their will?

Michael Atherton
Prospect Park

PS: I don't smoke tobacco or marijuana.