I agree with Tom Thompson, since we are allowing 'Legal Substances' to be banned, why not use this "police" power as a precedent. Let's give our CM's the power to ban other harmful things. Since we are banning things for health reasons, and for the good of all, because of their affects upon others, I support banning the following:
1. White floor and sugar. Diabetes is at an epidemic level, and people (because of addiction) are just not able to resist the temptation. Obesity and diabetes account for much higher morbidity and mortality rates than second-hand smoke. In fact morbidity and mortality rates from these two beggar any other cause in our 'protected' consumer society. In addition, some people are allergic to wheat products. These folks deserve to be protected from accidental consumption. Kitchen workers with such allergies also deserve to be protected from being forced to come in contact with such substances either on first hand or second hand basis in the work place. 2. Tom is very much correct, perfume, cologne, deodorant and such things are very harmful because of their second hand effect. They should be banned in all public places, work place, and any establishment where people may assemble. Their use and second hand affects violates "Public Space" with an agent that is toxic to many, and obnoxious to some others. 3. Sex outside an exclusive relationship, because it promotes the spread of Aids and other communicable disease, and sometimes causes unwanted pregnancies that can result in abortion. (I have seen ads on television about the impact of teen pregnancies on young lives and our society. They are indeed compelling!). Also the physical addiction to sex is knowingly promulgated by the powerful market forces of corporate America. Corporate America is bombarding young minds with ads in every media form to promote products which young minds would otherwise be able to resist. They spend many billions of dollars on such ads. 4. Interstate trade in peanut products. Even second hand dust may be deadly to someone with an allergy to such products. Such toxic peanut agents are spread on hands and clothing. Peanut products are also included in some products that the unsuspecting may touch or consume.(Some bars even offer and allow the consumption on their premises) I am merely asking for non-discriminatory equal protection from these and other harmful agents. We should not discriminate against just our own pet antipathies, but protect people in a carefully consistent pattern. I am of course joking, but putting my jokes into reality, and all jokes aside, which CM is going to attempt to be logically and ethically consistent with their protection of us? Let me know when one steps forward, will you? I know someone is out there to offer ordinance bans on these things. Jim Graham, Considering the need for rubber body suits and gas masks in Ventura Village, Phillips Community Planning District and the Sixth Ward of Salem'apolis ----- Original Message ----- "Tom Thompson writes<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Let's Ban It Since we are going to be banning substances that are legal, I think there are a few more "public health" issues that need to be addressed. What about the people with respiratory problems, asthma, etc. who can't go places because of fragrances. I think we should ban all fragrances from the workplace and public places so that people with respiratory problems can work in peace. All deodorant, after shave, cologne, perfume, etc should be banned from all public places and work places. An asthmatic attack caused by these fragrances can lead to death in the short term, not just the long term effects. And of course the big one that we have to ban. All fast food, all high calorie food, fatty foods and anything else that may cause us to be fat, because the cost of obesity cost us $900 billion, if all related medical expenses are added up. I guess that smoking must just be the first thing on the slippery slope of banning personal choices, or is it just that you have a personal aversion to one but not the other? Soon what, where and probably with whom we eat will be dictated by government. God Bless America, land of the free? Of course this is fascious, but I hope it points out how absurd we are in banning one persons vices or choices when we are all guilty of infringing on each others health daily. Let's get back to reason and let people make personal choices. Tom Thompson Como Park 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
