I know people get in trouble addressing a particular person when doing a Post on the Issues Forum. Perhaps even slander and defamation might be allowed when done in the third person, or when "properly" posed as a question. I remember being outraged when Ed Felien was inappropriately attacked in just such a manner when he was running for office. For that reason I appreciate being addressed personally by both Rick and David Shore. Meaningful things that you care about should never be discussed in a detached de-personalizing third person manner, so thank you to both for caring enough (even though disagreeing with me).
I sincerely hope there are bars for David Shore to go to that are smoke free. I DO wish there were bars that were non-smoking and offered good music for Rick. The problem is that many who support the "Ban" do not seem to understand that the issue is not about THEM. I did not "dismiss the opposition with a snide butt-kicking jeer?", I attempted to address with humor what appeared to me to be a "snide butt-kicking jeer" that hopefully Eddie also meant as humor. And by the way, I am not "opposition" to anything, other than perhaps tyranny against individuals in the name of "Political Correctness". Heck, I wish everyone would choose to quit smoking! The issue is not to limit the opportunities for David or Rick. The issue is also not to limit other people's opportunities. The issue IS whether they, the "Smoke Banners", have the right to make the world conform to them and ONLY them. What seems to be lost in the discussion is the person that the ordinance is aimed at - the person who owns the bar and pays his or her own money to make a business as he or she feels is right. So David and Rick (and others of like mind), please DO gather together a great group of like minded people, and start a non-smoking bar that brings in great bands and musical groups. Start such a great bar that it makes smokers refrain from the filthy habit for a couple of hours just to be able to get into such a great bar. In fact make it so successful that you can't get into it because it is so crowded. Heck, if 70% of this MPLS Issues Forum alone joined you it would be a very successful bar. So successful that other similar copycat bars will then also spring up. As successful business is always copied in our free market system. Also, please do NOT go to bars who do allow smoking, and just as importantly tell the owners why you are boycotting them. I sincerely hope many owners of "smoking bars" will decide it is good business to change and run a smoke free bar. I truly do sympathize with both David Shove and Rick, and do think they should have businesses that cater to them. In fact if there were a law that prevented the operation of a bar catering to non-smokers, I would be in the forefront of fighting it. The problem is that the "Pro-Banners" are NOT advocating for themselves to be able to go to a bar of their choice. They advocate to NOT ALLOW other consenting adults to go to a bar of THEIR choice and to NOT ALLOW the use of a legal substance in a business dedicated to that use. It is not the tyranny of the 20% over the 80%. It is not the attempt create more personal freedom for the 80%. It IS the attempt to limit the freedom of other consenting adults from partaking of a "LEGAL" substance in an establishment where the owner wants it to be consumed in conjunction with another legal substance which he or she sells in that establishment. But Rick and David, please be fair minded enough to think about your stance on the issue. How would either of you like it if the City banned the drinking of alcohol in Minneapolis bars, or the playing of music in Minneapolis bars? I am sure you would NOT. Just as some of us who do not care about smoking still do not think that it is either ethical or right to ban businesses from allowing the use of legal substances. I would ask each of you to think of the alternative, a City with closed clubs where only members could come and listen to good music, while having a drink. If it is a legal substance for use by consenting adults then allow its use and the freedom to use it within specific buildings and businesses dedicated to its use. If not, then make it an illegal substance. Right now people seem to be advocating limiting the second hand smoke in the one place where their IS choice. People CAN choose to frequent an establishment or not. People can also choose to work or not work in such an environment. While in my youth there was forced labor on plantations in the South, I have not heard of forced labor in Minneapolis. The hazards of many professions far exceed the dangers of second hand smoke. (Perhaps we should ban after hours convenience stores or the police departments? In my mind those jobs might also be, and often are, far more dangerous?) ------------------------------------------------------------- Now for a another related "Issue". Good move by a politician! I happen to be pro-choice for several things. I must admit to no small amount of disappointment in some of my Democratic Party colleagues. Colleagues who seem to have gone to sleep while dreaming of liberal freedoms and political correctness and awoken as close minded as some Republicans sometimes seem; and willing to curtail freedoms of choice for others. And come awake with what is apparently a smug self righteousness and moral outrage about smoking in bars that would make the moral majority green with envy. It reminds me for all the world of the moral majority's stance on wanting to outlaw "Choice" for women, but at the same time being opposed to birth control. It is good to see that RT Rybak can at least see the forest through the political correct trees. Though I do not always agree with RT Rybak on issues, this is certainly one where he has had the courage to stand for that personal freedom, and not bow to the tyranny of the "Moral Majority". Even if he did quit smoking himself. Of course RT probably remembers that he CHOSE to quit. So HIP, HIP, HIP for RT! ------------------------------------------------------------ I hope I can again post to the "Issues" Forum, but do not count on it. It has been hinted that opposing opinions are sometimes not welcome. Jim Graham, Speedy Block Club, Ventura Village Neighborhood, Phillips Community Planning District, Sixth Precinct, Sixth Ward; District 61A, City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Fifth Congressional District, State of Minnesota, United States of America. (and sometimes other places too). 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
