Oh c'mon Jim, you are quite capable of doing better than this ramble! Prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants is not one foot on some sort of imaginary slope; there are no "rights" at stake; it is not an invasion of privacy; it is not about big government "in other people's business" (although every law and ordinance on the books could be construed this way I suppose); it is not about banning anything!
FYI, we do have very, very strict ordinances about when and where one can discharge a weapon in Minneapolis - to protect the public. I for one am quite amused at the inability of opponents to mount cogent, arguments against this proposal! That further regulating an already heavily regulated activity to protect public health in Minneapolis should provoke such impassioned histrionics is breathtaking! Jim Bernstein Fulton -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gemgram Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 9:16 PM To: Michael Hohmann; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Mpls] smoking and free markets 101 Michael Hohmann Linden Hills writes, "...enjoying a Macanudo as I work on a laptop from the deck outside my home office. Hot black coffee. What a beautiful sunny morning." Tobacco, work, sun shine? Aren't all those things cancer causing? Careful Michael! You will have the "Moral Majority" down on you for having a cigar and work in not only the same sentence, but (my god) in the same place. The republicans must be laughing with glee at my fellow liberal democrats who see no humor, let alone hypocrisy, in their lobbying to put big government in other people's business. Some of the same people who have previously advocated for legalizing marijuana are now lobbying (and perhaps voting at the Council) to stop tobacco smoking???? Next they will choose some new thing to ban. What next? Will our own pseudo-liberal democrats begin lobbying to also get their noses into others bedrooms? Or will they go on to wanting to ban alcohol from bars while at the same time supporting legalizing some other mood altering drugs? It seems some have crawled so deep into the righteousness of their own minds that they have momentarily forgotten their own vices. It outrages them that others might want to assemble for mutual pleasures. Pleasures which they, the "Moral Majority", have forsworn. Of course this new righteous group remind me in no small part of the fundamentalist Bible-thumpers of my youth. The "Righteous" who always had their noses where they did not belong, (up someone else's butt) while they were also busy sneaking around getting their own vice wherever they could get it. So what's next on the liberal Moral Majority's hit list? What do the righteous want to also save others from. Hey I have it, lets make a law that the intolerant and hypocritical can not vote in Minneapolis. No, the unrighteous would never go for that and the "Moral Majority" would want to vote to only allow their fellow "Majority" to vote since they are the only ones righteous enough and smart enough to be able to decide things for themselves. Well Michael, I hope you (and others) keep taking those breaks for good coffee and a cigar if you wish. I would not want you to do it in my house, but hey I am glad you can do it in yours. (Cigar smoke will kill in my house, because if my wife smells it she would kill me) By the way Michael if I wish to come to your house I will NOT try to make you stop. I will just accept it as your right and freedom to do so, and NOT come if I can not accept your rules. Hey, isn't that what the bar owner is saying? You know I do not think "Non-Smoker" is a protected class. Do fair labor laws kick in if someone advertises for smokers only (or those who enjoy smokers) to serve patrons of a Smoking&Drinking Club? After all isn't that what we require from bartenders? Do those opposed to alcohol get to demand that they get bartending jobs in bars that do not serve alcohol, and if there aren't any don't they get to demand that ALL bars stop serving alcohol? Or hey, how about Police Officers? Shouldn't those who wish be able to oppose police officers being forced into carrying firearms? After all those things are dangerous, and if they have to qualify at a pistol-range they might breathe second hand lead smoke. Also, I am opposed to second hand bullets, those things are not as harmless as some thugs in 'OUR' Impacted Neighborhoods seem to think. When we have thugs still selling crack and meth on our corners in front of God and everyone (and shooting up the 'Hood') you would think some City Council Members would have different priorities. Remember folks, "Second Hand Bullets Can Kill"! Jim Graham, At the moment sick from second hand germs in Ventura Village, Phillips Community Planning District, Sixth Ward, of Minneapolis, in the state of confusion 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 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
