Jim Bernstein writes, "Since none of the other arguments don't work".  Jim
Bernstein is correct, none of the other arguments DON"T work, because most
of them do.

 However the only ones that I happen to agree with are:

1.  That just as non-smokers NEED places to go that are smoke -free, smokers
need the same. Smokers "and their friends" are not lobbying to prevent a bar
owner from having and running a smoke-free environment. They support the
right of business owners to run an establishment that allows patrons and
owners to choose.

2. That I would rather have smokers confined inside establishments licensed
for that purpose than gathered around doors outside in public space. (I
remember a sitting Council Member and Ban-supporter making the same argument
in favor of massage parlors and prostitution before the last election. The
difference he seems to forget was and is that prostitution is illegal in
this State, but smoking is NOT.)

The smoking ban folks need to think of some of the reasons they get mad at
the religious right about wanting to ban things like choice in marriage,
body, and bedroom and then ask themselves how they are different. Please
remember a case can be made by someone (with their own statistics) for
health issues in all those circumstances.

If the "Banners" and "Pro-Breathers" are seriously interested in the public
health issues of smoking they should make a case for banning smoking
altogether in this State.  Something I could support by the way! Not
arbitrarily infringing on someone else's rights to enjoy a LEGAL substance
inside establishments dedicated to that purpose, and run by proprietors who
wish to run such businesses.

A logical plan would be for the City to ban smoking anywhere except in
establishments that it "Licenses" to have smoking. Just as it does the
drinking of alcohol!  It is what responsible law makers attempt to do with
legal substances that they do not want consumed in public.

Well that ends an ex-smoker's attempts to interject logic and ethics into an
illogical argument whose different sides have NO time or mind for such.
Like the old guy from the television of my youth use to say as he slapped
his hands together to indicate he was now totally out of the argument, "I've
had my say!"

---------------------------------------------------------

For "lizski",
 The difference in switching money around comes with NRP.  The neighborhood
groups and the NRP Policy Board had to approve the use of the one million
dollars for "additional" police services.  State legislation establishing
NRP specifically stipulates that NRP dollars CANNOT be used to "replace"
regular City funding.  Joe Mullory the present Chair of the NRP policy Board
and a State Legislator has made this clear many times.  Perhaps he could
clarify that point for "Issue" readers.

You are correct Liz about the use of NRP dollars to fund additional police
services.  The reason for this use was that the City of Minneapolis refused
to budget adequate dollars for that purpose.  For that reason I am amazed
that City officials now plan to cut 135 more officers.  Didn't these same
City Officials, just a couple of months ago, come to NRP Neighborhoods
begging for NRP dollars because they had not budgeted enough to provide
adequate police to address Minneapolis' crime problems?  Talk about your
"Bait and Switch" scams.  'Please give us your money because we don't have
enough police' - to three months later claiming 'we don't even need the
police we have' - is a reach at best! And you know what it is at worst!

Jim Graham,
Ventura Village, Phillips Community Planning District, Third Precinct, and
Sixth Ward




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

Reply via email to