Michael - I am not going to debate the smoking ban with you anymore. Your thinking on this issue has so devolved that now you are reduced to offering that "the Nazi's thought it was acceptable to limit the choices of Jews by restricting them to ghettos" as an equivalent action to the city of Minneapolis prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants.
Believe me Michael, the Holocaust was far, far more than just "limiting the choices of Jews to ghettos"! At some point Michael, you need to acknowledge that smoking in public places is a privilege not an absolute right and that cities do have the authority to regulate public accommodations with regard to health and safety. But most importantly, I hope you can recognize that the issue is not - in any way - comparable with 6 million people murdered because of their religion. Jim Bernstein Fulton -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Atherton Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 2:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking Ban Jim Bernstein wrote: > Who said anything about casino gambling and commercial sex? It is > really a simple point: smoking cigarettes is like a host of other > activities - it is not something you get to do whenever and > wherever you want! Well actually you did. You said, "Like drinking, gambling, sex and other necessary bodily functions) the public does put some limits on where and when you can engage in these activities but they are not banned outright." I would assume, not unreasonably, that when you said "gambling" and "sex" that the general terms would include casino gambling and commercial sex, which to my knowledge are both banned. > As to the notion that "limiting choices is making life unfair",. well > that is quite simply absurd! In order to live with other people in a > somewhat orderly social system everyone's "choices" may be limited. The problem here is when it is acceptable to limit others' choices. The Nazis (and many others) thought it was acceptable to limit the choices of Jews by restricting them to ghettos. The Puritans limited all kinds of "acceptable" behaviors. My position is that when someone else's behavior has no effect on you, then you have no right to restrict their choices. I think that it's perfectly acceptable for me to want to open a bar where people are allowed to smoke. No one is requiring you to enter my establishment. To expect to able to come in and demand that everyone stop smoking because you find it offensive, is in my opinion, extremely arrogant and officious. There are lots of things that I find offensive in American society, but unless they put me or my family at risk I don't believe it's within my rights to restrict the choices of others, but I guess you do. Michael Atherton Prospect Park -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/2005 REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
