[Mpls] On the smoking ban and Porter's

[Michael Atherton]

Mark Snyder wrote:

> The fact that secondhand smoke may be harmful is completely relevant.
> 
> The reason it's so is because of what Atherton snipped out of 
> my comment, which was "my right to do something that has no 
> impact on you..."
> 
> If you don't believe your action of smoking impacts me, then 
> logic would follow that you don't believe secondhand smoke is 
> harmful.

I don't believe that people smoking in bars and restaurants
impacts you AGAINST YOUR WILL.  You have to make an overt
decision for secondhand smoke to affect you.  You have to 
explicitly perform a series of actions for it to have an impact 
on your health and you can as easily make a different set of 
decisions.

Your argument necessitates the assumption that you have a
right to ban whatever MIGHT have an effect on your health
in any public space if you happen to decide to go there.  
Has anyone here thought this through?  Doesn't anyone 
else see how far reaching this can be?  It means that the 
government can ban anything that might negatively impact
the health of anyone in any public space.  For example,
because snowmobiles have a high accident rate and someone
might be skiing or snowshoeing across the path of a
snowmobile we can ban them.  We can ban skiing because
people can be injured in a collision.  We can ban public
restrooms, dancing, baseball, football, parades, automobiles,
bicycles, skateboards, rollerblades, public gatherings
during flu season, rock concerts, and this is only using
health as a basis, let alone morality.

> The ban does not tell smokers they cannot smoke, so the 
> argument that "the things we choose maybe harmful to our
> health, our spirits, or our morality, but they should remain 
> our own choices and not be dictated by the values of
> other people" is what's irrelevant  here.

The ban tells smokers they cannot gather in a public place
by mutual decision to enjoy the company of others while they
smoke.  I believe that people should have the right to socialize
publicly if it has no involuntary impact on anyone else.  If 
you've forgotten this IS guaranteed explicitly by the Constitution, 
"Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the right of the 
people peaceably to assemble."

> The only reason I've tried to "limit debate" on this issue is 
> because the same arguments keep getting made again and again 
> by the same people since this whole smoking ban issue came up 
> a year or so ago.
> 
> It's long past gotten old...

Yea, I'm sure that many people got bored with the fight 
against McCarthyism.  Communists are evil, let's get on with
it.  Smokers are evil, we've got a ban there's no point in
discussing it further.  I don't think so and I will continue
to argue for the rights of individuals to make their own
independent choices.

Michael Atherton
Prospect Park