Parallel arguments: If liquor is legal, it should be my right to down a beer or three while I'm driving down the freeway.
If liquor is legal, I should be able to open my bar at 4am. If guns are legal, I should be able to have one near some world leader when he/she's in town. All or nothing at all, that's my motto. --David Shove Roseville On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, gemgram wrote: > Resist Minneapolis! > > Let me start by saying I think tobacco smoking is a terrible, nasty, awful > addiction. But it is an addiction that is condoned and legal in > Minneapolis. Minneapolis not only makes it legal but it licenses smoke shops > and stores to sell that product. Minneapolis politicians allow tobacco to be > publicly consumed on our streets. The exception seems to be inside of bars > where both the owners and the patrons want to engage in this activity. > Which is discrimination in my opinion. I am not arguing that stopping > people from smoking is not a good thing, what I am arguing is the > justification for that discrimination. It in fact is similar, in many ways, > to my feelings about the "Patriot Act". > > In our system (fortunately) "rights" are reserved for the people and the > individual. They are NOT granted by the government. They have been > "Endowed by God". The people "GRANT" certain powers to the government, all > others are reserved to the people. Our founding fathers knew this, but > unfortunately our history is replete with injustices that have been > justified by the "public good". Such theories of "public good" once > justified slavery, justified the ethnic cleansing of American Indians, the > "taking" of their land, not allowing Native Americans to vote until the > 1920's, not allowing them to drink in some states until the 1950's. And > lest we forget, only about 60 years ago it justified internment camps for > some of our citizens who were the wrong color and ethnic background. So let > us be very, very careful when we talk of public good abridging or taking of > "Rights". > > My point is that in Minneapolis the politicians should have the moral > courage to live up to their convictions. If politicians justify their ban > of smoking in bars for reasons of the public health of the bar workers then > they should look at other professions also. If the Mayor and Council are > passing their bar ban for protecting people from their legal vices then make > Minneapolis a "Smoke Free" city that bans the sale of tobacco or its public > consumption completely. These ifs of course leave one important if out, and > that is "IF" Minneapolis politicians are not engaging in political > pandering. Which of course they are. > > If something is "LEGAL" then you should be able to use that product in an > establishment intended for that purpose, and whose owner has the "property > rights" to make decisions about that use. But we in Minneapolis should be > very careful about what we allow our politicians to ban for our public > "good". We as Minneapolis voters perhaps might begin to "Ban" any > politician who panders, or who does not spend our tax dollars wisely. > > Bar owners and patrons should perhaps organize to "pack" the caucuses and > block the DFL endorsement of any such panderer. Of course that is the very > reason for the "whittling" rather than "cutting" that the politicians do. > Minneapolis politicians (and politicians at every level) know that if you do > it a little at a time you will never get the mass of public outrage that is > necessary to create the motivation to pack those DFL caucuses. Bar owners > should remember that 250 people interested in being delegates are worth more > than 10,000 votes in an election in Minneapolis. 2500 such delegates to the > DFL conventions are worth more than fifty thousand votes in the election. > You cannot vote for what is not on the ballot. Without that DFL endorsement > several Minneapolis politicians are in trouble. > > So Bar owners and patrons, organize and go to your caucuses determined to > change the pandering politicians. Change them. They should not be there if > they care so little for your “Rights”. Then hopefully use that > determination to (by your own choice) quit that dirty, unhealthy addiction. > Not because of "Law", but because you want and need to. > > “If we do not define our self for our self, we will be crunched into other > people's fantasies of who we should be and lose the whom, who we are. Death > strikes more than just a body, sometimes it claims a soul and the body may > not know that ‘it’ is dead and thus continue on for years. But remember > crickets, with even a small strike for individuality the individual person > may be reborn, and thereby may come resurrection.” > > Jim Graham, > Ventura Village Neighborhood, Phillips Community, Sixth Ward of Minneapolis > > Wise sayings > >“We can only be what we give ourselves the power to be” > – A Cherokee Feast of Days > > >“The people are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our > > liberty.” > - Thomas Jefferson > > > 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
