In a message dated 5/11/2004 6:51:25 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Your place is a public accommodation, and as such, has an obligation not to disciminate - against nonsmokers as much as a person of color, which I'm sure you do not.
I've been staying on the sidelines with this because many capable people are writing in, but when people start comparing smoking as a form of discrimination against nonsmokers comparable to that of discrimination experienced by people of color, I know it's time wedge in a bit, because that's like the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing it. On to the main issue of who has a right to be where, and I've got to agree with Mike Hohman on this in that it's about choice. When the argument rises up there will be no affect on business and yet no one offers any form of proof, I'm a little confused, however, my wife's restaurant in Duluth did lose business when they enacted their smoking ban to Wisconsin (as has already been stated earlier). In addition, according to the President of Californians for Smokers Rights (I think it's pretty obvious where they come down on this argument), there was an increase in sales which is where many people get the idea that it doesn't affect businesses, but when you look a little closer, you find that the increase in business is largely the fast food industry. Fast food outdistanced the overall economy increase, but restaurants and bars lagged behind, and even decreased in licensing, meaning that businesses closed during this overall economic increase. When the argument arises about the health of non-smokers, I noticed no one seems to be talking about the health of smokers as far as addiction. I'm a non-smoker and I think it's sad (sad-funny that is) watching my smoking friends huddle in the entranceway dealing with the addiction. I support non-smoking offices and public venues like libraries and courthouses, but there's a difference between being open to the public and being a public venue. And no one seems to be that concerned about the compounded effect of smoking rooms, outdoor designated areas and addiction. We're not doing anything to help them kick the habit, but we will compact them into areas or force them out of venues for non-smoker's rights. More importantly as this is an addiction, no one seems to be talking about the additional impact of when we shove them outside in the snow, rain or other inclement weather and the effect that will have on their health. And before you start talking about everyone's right to breathe, read Doug Grow's article. How do you ethically push for a restaurant and bar ban, but allow industry and vehicles to keep pumping their toxins into the air. I'm not a Libertarian, I just believe in having a consistent ethic and not half-steppin'. And finally, when we get down to "freedom" to go everywhere, how many people were really holding off on going to the Hard Times or other restaurants because of the smoking? Not "you would visit downtown more", but who really has a restaurant they've been dying to go to, but are boycotting because of smoking? As we start talking about the effects that places have, or we going to start banning anything that has a negative effect? Will the Saloon and the 90s now have to ban interaction between GLBT couples because diehard religious nuts say that it is morally wrong and they can't be around it, and therefore can't go? Are we going to tell the Christian nightclubs that they must now be secular because Muslims and Buddhist are prevented from entering because of their doctrine? Do we have restaurants stop serving alcohol because alcoholics cannot patronize them because of the danger? Or do Thai restaurants have to stop cooking their dishes because a person is allergic to curry and therefore can't be in the restaurant? Where does it end? To be clear and fair, none of those things has the same identifiable impact as second-hand smoke, but it's not a valid argument to say that non-smokers are being discriminated against because they don't choose to patronize places with smoking because of the smoke, but those with addictions should just get over it. I can support tax incentives for non-smoking businessed or permits for smoking businesses and non smoking public venues, but where you patronize is a choice. If someplace is smoking and you don't like it, then don't go. Take your business elsewhere, but deciding for other people where it is they can be is just wrong. Jonathan Palmer Victory REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
