dain lyngstad wrote:
We in the public interest should first ban the purchase of alcohol. A much more dangerous drug to the public good than tobacco. If we remove this vice there will be a precedent to banning tobacco a far fewer places folks will go to smoke. Oh but drinking is still accepted by the morals police so we know that will not happen. The republicans give us the patriot act and the dfl will give us a moral patriot act here. Huh!Dain LyngstadPhillips/edina
Once again, someone ignores the simple facts:
1. One cannot enjoy smoking tobacco in public without adversely affecting others. One CAN drink responsibly in public.
2. No amount of tobacco has been show to be good for one's health; in fact, quite the contrary. On the other hand, alcohol can be not only enjoyed in moderation, but there's good evidence that in small quantities, it actually improves our health.
3. We tried Prohibition once. It didn't work. Instead, it gave us organized crime.
4. The debate has nothing to do with morals. Shall we check with the Latter Day Saints? They say no smoking, no drinking and no caffeine is the moral way to go. Does that clarify the debate any? No.
Chris Johnson / Fulton
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
