Mike Jensvold writes: "Nicotine is a powerful stimulant. It has been a part of the medium which gave rise to music from big band to punk rock... For those who advocate a total ban so they can enjoy an occasional smoke-free concert - know that you are destroying a part of the creative mix..."
Well, at least Mike didn't claim tobacco was responsible for punk rock. That's giving it too much credit. Heroin and amphetamines are responsible for that, if any chemicals are. Perhaps we have a Modest Proposal in the making. Maybe Minneapolis should decriminalize use of these drugs in the downtown nightclubs? There is no need to challenge federal law on the matter; just don't actively enforce it. (A few Minneapolis neighborhoods are already used to this concept of "no active enforcement"; let's give Downtown its chance.) Think of the creative precedent. Think of Coleridge, De Quincey, Baudelaire, Burroughs, Ginsberg, Lou Reed. Unlike smoking, these drugs don't directly harm those who don't use them. There are notable *indirect* problems associated with their use, but surely these can be contained, as they are in Amsterdam. This might even help people quit smoking! Heroin is a powerful relaxant. Attractive models could hand out samples in the bars, just like the cigarette companies used to do. (The first one's always free.) Some say smoking is "good" now, because it kills people off before they can get old and sick. This is quite a humane notion, but let's look at the alternatives: heroin and speed are quicker and cleaner, without any secondary smoke. And if you survive, you have better chances of quitting either one than of giving up smoking. It's true. Junkies either die or kick the habit in about 10-12 years. Only about a third of smokers ever quit. Some argue that drugs support 'terrorism'. Yes, and tobacco supports Jesse Helms and his ilk. You call that a choice? If you're an artist or musician and you really believe chemicals help you create, fine. Smoke outside, in your private studio or in your parents' basement. But not in the bars or restaurants. Don't inflict your deadly muse on me. Those of us who've decided life is still worth living after our twenties will be able to get out more often if the ban passes. Cigarette smoke keeps me away from shows I'd enjoy otherwise. Honestly, twenty-something 'cocktail smokers' won't stop going out if bars go smoke-free. They will whine that The Man is sticking it to them, but they won't give up the music. And fewer of them will become addicts. I remember very well being 21 and spending night after night in noisy little rooms so smoky that I might as well be smoking myself - so why not try cigarettes? This may be the only time after childhood in which people have a strong potential to become addicted to nicotine through regular contact, even if they grew up in non-smoking homes. The tobacco companies aren't going to give up that chance easily. On more of a neighborhood level, I can't be the only one who likes eating at Hard Times Cafe IN SPITE of the smoke -- because it's got great organic vegetarian food, and it's run by a worker collective. I will support the place for those reasons alone, whether or not the ban passes, though right now the non-smoking section by the jade plants is the only place I dare sit. Sam Adams East Phillips P.S. Sorry if anyone found this post tasteless. With all the smoke being blown around in here, I can't taste very well. 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
