I didn't have the courage to go to the St.Paul hearing on the ban because I expected I
would be flayed. I'm even more wary of commenting here, because I'm so outnumbered.
However, Atherton's irreverence gave me a chuckle and I wanted to point out this
letter that appeared in the Strib on Sunday.
Tyrannical smoking ban
The May 27 Star Tribune article about the smoking ban debate in St. Paul reminded me
of one of my favorite quotes from C.S. Lewis: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised
for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for
our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their
own conscience."
Regardless of what ban supporters say, this is not about public health; it's about
controlling the lives of others. These people simply cannot stand the fact that people
enjoy smoking and they will use every lie in the book to try to deny people that
right.
Even as a nonsmoker who abhors smoking, I feel this type of thinking is far more
dangerous than secondhand smoke ever could be.
Gene Eliasen, Minneapolis.
I trust Mr. Eliason will excuse my quoting a public letter. And I really don't want to
offend: I want to have the guts to speak for at least some smokers because this has
become such a rancorous issue.
I rarely go out and didn't think I cared about banning smoke in bars and
restaurants. But the more letters I've read (sometimes really contemptuous), the more
I've thought this is getting out of hand. I feel as if non-smokers are saying they
should get to go EVERYWHERE they choose, while smokers aren't allowed to go ANYWHERE.
There are even some counties banning smoking in public parks, because they don't want
their children exposed to bad examples. Yikes. I'm about as far left as one can get,
but sometimes I think "the state where everything is against the law" sort of fits.
Atherton offers an idea about a compromise and there is an instant rush to rebut.
When people quote the statistic of 70-80% who don't smoke, they don't seem to
recognize that the other 20-30% are people, too. Remember Shylock saying "Hath not a
Jew eyes? ... senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same
weapons... warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you
prick us, do we not bleed? " I expect to be skewered for calling on Shakespeare, but
it does hurt to be such an outcast.
One more point before the flaying and skewering. This comment made me see a possible
generation/entertainment gap:
I can't wait to breathe smoke-free air at First Ave,
Fine Line, Uptown Dinner, or other places to see great
local bands
I have NEVER been to any of those places. I became addicted to nicotine 40 years ago.
My partying days are over. Is there some way these places can be convinced to go
smokefree? Can other compromises at least be considered that don't involve
quarantining a quarter of the population for using what is not only a legal substance
but one that governments profit from shamelessly?
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
