----- Original Message -----
From: "Jared Chester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: [Mpls] RE: Smoking ban
Mr. Thompson:
Do not presume to know where I'm from, where I go nor where I stop for a
drink or any other purpose. I now avoid Ramsey and Dakota County and
probably go to some of the places you seem to think are great but assume
I wouldn't go there because you've put some kind of "yuppy" label on me.
So you patronize the working-class bars of Hiawatha and NE? Now, or did you
before? If you do now, because they ban smoking, then you're one of the 2%
(my estimate) that is actually deigning to go to some of the establishments
that the ban proponents, I am quite sure, never thought existed.......
However, my original point still stands regarding this issue: the ban was so
the liberal enlightened could go downtown and visit the trendy jazz and
music clubs and not have to wash their hair when they got home. Mind you,
these are the same people, by and large, who clamor for a "living wage" and
"good-paying jobs" and all that crap, and the very ban they proposed has put
the great unwashed they ostensibly care so much about....... out of work.
Nice.
People that don't smoke, have children or breathing issues do not have
the option to go to these establishments if there is smoking. People
that do smoke can chose to not smoke and still go. Simple, right?
Oh, but they DO have the option of going, or not going, into these
establishments. They just don't like their options. Having options, but not
liking the options, is entirely different than not having the options in the
first place. Thanks to people like you, and the Minneapolis city council,
all options have been taken away, because people like you and those cited
above quite simply refuse to make the tough decisions in life, and have
abdicated their decision-making abilities, in this realm, to the city
council.
I just can't ignore the fact that I see families that go to places such
as the Chatterbox that would never ever go there before. Besides, you
can actually smell their food now. Its wonderful. No one has banned
the legal choice of smoking. The ban simply limits the negative impact
of a person's individual choice to smoke.
Or, conversely, takes away a business' right to cater to the clientele
he/she wishes to cater to. How a business catering to a specific crowd is
negative is beyond me.
Let's hear from other families or individuals with asthma or emphysema
(from smoking before) that can enjoy restaurants now that businesses
don't have to cater to the smokers.
I'd love to hear from them. I'd ask them how their ability to choose to stay
out of smoky bars was impacted by their disability. Apparently choice goes
when a disability occurs. If somebody has a lung disability, it is their
responsibility to stay out of places that allow the use of a legal product
so said legal product does not detrimentally effect their health. Apparently
people with asthma and emphysema lost their decision making abilities when
they lost their lung function. I have mild, exercise-induced asthma that is
sometimes aggravated by passive smoke. I simply stay away from it. How
god-awful tough can it be?
Mike Thompson
Windom
Life-long non-smoker
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
