- Original Message -
From: "Jared Chester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
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
Jared Chester wrote:
> 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?
>
> I just can't ignore the fact that I see families that go
AIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:58 AM
To: Jared Chester
Subject: Re: [Mpls] RE: Smoking ban
It's posts like yours below that make me scratch my head and wonder if
you really believe what you write. In many, many bars in Minneapolis
(probably the ones you've never lowere
A single minded business plan built on addiction is more of the drug
dealer's forte. I would venture that poor business plans and general
economics were much more powerful forces in bringing down these "mom &
pop" bars/restaurants. The smoking ban doesn't kill businesses.
Smoking does. Bar owne
Robert Schmid wrote:
Faith in the market is misplaced faith, indeed. The "great, invisible
hand of the marketplace" fails as often, if not more often than it
succeeds and smoking is a perfect example of that. If the market truly
worked, then very, very few people would smoke. They would understa
Mark Snyder wrote:
> I don't know whether Tim Bonham drives and I'm not sure why
> it matters, but it seems to me that the motor vehicle analogy
> would serve as an argument for a smoking ban in bars/restaurants
> rather than against it.
> We recognize the dangers that operating a motor
On 6/2/05 9:18 PM, "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tim Bonham wrote:
>
>> Yes, but even if the smell of hotdogs bothers you, it is NOT
>> known to cause cancer in those who happen to smell it.
>>
>> Unlike secondhand smoke, which IS a proven cancer-causing agent in
>> non
Tim Bonham wrote:
> Yes, but even if the smell of hotdogs bothers you, it is NOT
> known to cause cancer in those who happen to smell it.
>
> Unlike secondhand smoke, which IS a proven cancer-causing agent in
> non-smokers who happen to breath it.
>
> A real big difference there.
Mo
Yes, but even if the smell of hotdogs bothers you, it is NOT known to cause
cancer in those who happen to smell it.
Unlike secondhand smoke, which IS a proven cancer-causing agent in
non-smokers who happen to breath it.
A real big difference there.
Tim Bonham, Ward 12, Standish-Ericsson
Wh
"The smoking ban wasn't needed if those with enough
faith in the market would allow it to do its job."
But wouldn't that be a violation of the principle of
the seperation of church and state?
I think we might call this "irrational exuberance"
about the market of a kind all it's own. A faith or
b
I'm not going to comment on the continuously recycled
arguments on why it should be permissible for a
minority of smokers to put the rest of us, as
employees and patrons, in danger because their too
lazy to step outside.
But the argument against the cart ordinance seems a
bit silly. There is a lo
Why stop there I personally can't stand the smell of hotdog's. I think we
should make a law banning the outdoor grilling of the "dogs" Plus I can't stand
it when my neighbors shout "someones cooking johnsonville brats"
David Brady
Downtown
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULE
> One more time on the smoking ban: the smoking ban is tyrannical because it
> is another example of oppressive power exerted by government. The smoking
> ban wasn't needed if those with enough faith in the market would allow it
> to
> do its job.
Faith in the market is misplaced faith, indeed.
.)
Mike Thompson
Windom
Life-long non-smoker
LRT: 2 MPPA: 0
- Original Message -
From: "John Erwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:16 AM
Subject: [Mpls] RE: Smoking and Carts
>
>
>
> Keith says:
> "Gary Schiff is trying so hard
Keith says:
"Gary Schiff is trying so hard to fill Jackie Cherryhomes' tyrannical shoes.
He must believe there is not much on the front burner while he is busy
keeping working stiffs from lighting up at their corner bar. Or he is busy
creating an arcane rental application fee ordinance that do
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Jim Bernstein wrote:
> There has not been any activity to ban smoking in Minneapolis (or
> Minnesota). There is no public support for such a move and it is
> questionable if such an ordinance could pass legal muster and would
> certainly be near impossible to enforce. Given t
are
"wholesome" or "healthy" activities but because they could be taxed if
legal!
Jim Bernstein
Fulton
-Original Message-
From: Michael Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 6:30 AM
To: Jim Bernstein; 'Andy Driscoll'; 'Minne
From: "Jim Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Michael Thompson'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Andy Driscoll'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Minneapolis Issues'" ; "'St.
Paul Discuss'"
Sent: Tuesday, April
No "situational mental gymnastics" are required! Smoking - like alcohol
and gaming - is a regulated "vice" that is both tolerated and taxed.
Smoking - like consuming alcohol and gaming - is not banned but rather
limited to specific places and forbidden in others.
Smoking in a public accommodati
> just for the record there are no bars on this list
> Liz Greenbaum
> Longfellow
>
> "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There weren't ANY non-smoking bars, huh? Here's a list of Minneapolis bars
> and restaurants which were VOLUNTARILY smoke-free before the ban:
My goodness, is there no end to
> It's nice that the anti-smoking crowd got out to try to offset the coming
> damage. On day, and "the sham is shattered," huh? Pretty quick to make that
> declaration! Here's a different perspective from a bar owner in Minneapolis:
>
> "Happy Hour at Stub and Herb's- Day one of the smoking ban.
"Michael Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Even if the smoking ban is a resounding success the far greater
>damage done is to everyone's freedom to make a choice. Voluntarily
>abdicating one's freedom to make a decision does exponentially more damage
>to all of us than second-hand smoke will ev
Michael Thompson wrote:
I've read the entire thread about "Smoking ban: Night One". The smoking ban
proponents were going to paint whatever rosy picture they needed to make the
first night sound like the greatest thing since hot water. I have no doubt
the atmosphere everywhere was different. But an
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Driscoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Minneapolis Issues" ; "St. Paul Discuss"
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 9:43 AM
Subject: [Mpls] Re: Smoking ban: Night One
> Let all pretense for economics driving resist
It's nice that the anti-smoking crowd got out to try to offset the coming
damage. On day, and "the sham is shattered," huh? Pretty quick to make that
declaration! Here's a different perspective from a bar owner in Minneapolis:
"Happy Hour at Stub and Herb's- Day one of the smoking ban.
30 of my 3
Ramsey County/St. Paul much the same, despite exemptions not possible in
Hennepin/Mpls/Bloomington. Patronage doubled in former smoking bastions.
Tavern on Grand packed for lunch and dinner (famous for walleye). Extra
staff had to be called in.
Let all pretense for economics driving resistance be
Not long ago, it was OK to hang the town drunk from the nearest oak tree --
for the "public good."
. . .
Vicky Heller
North Oaks and Cedar-Riverside
I recently read "Legacy of Violence: Lynchings and Executions in
Minnesota" by U of M Professor John D. Bessler (available in the
Minneapo
Warnings start now.
To repeat...again:
The smoking thread is now an ideological/moral debate that is no longer
city specific. I think the local policy implications have been
well-vetted. The combatants should take this deeper discussion
off-list.
David Brauer
List manager
REMINDERS:
1. Think a
So how about a "whites-only" bar?
People could "with whom to associate". They could freely choose to go
there, or to go to some other bar where they might feel more
comfortable. Some bar owners would cater to a "white" clientele, and
others would cater to a "mixed" clientele.
I know Dan would
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Dan wrote:
> Public places are those such as government facilities, parks, public
> schools, etc. Private businesses are not public places.
No. Businesses are open to the public; they are regulated by government -
at the mandate of the community, us the citizens. Restaruants
Mike Nelson wrote:
> I'd "like" to do lots of things. That doesn't mean
> I have the "right" to do them.
If the things you'd "like" to do don't have any
impact on anyone else shouldn't you have the right
to do them?
Michael Atherton
Prospect Park
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the
I'd "like" to do lots of things.
That doesn't mean I have the "right" to do them.
Mike Nelson
Central
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 sta
Jennifer Rubenzer
Plymouth
wrote
A smoking ban on private businesses is the equivalent of the government
marching into our homes and telling us what we will be eating that
night...or to many of our posters chagrin - whom we should be sleeping with.
We're talking about private businesses and pers
In a message dated 11/20/04 9:13:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Freedom is about choices, and responsibilities. Just because
you don't like smoking doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to enjoy it. >>
Enjoy it? Freedom may be about choices, but smoking is about addiction, and
anybody who
benzer
Plymouth
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chris Johnson
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 6:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [bcc][faked-from][heur][bayes] Re: [bcc][faked-from][bayes]
[Mpls] Re: Smoking Bans, fascism, andillicit dr
Jennifer L. Rubenzer wrote:
As any good Catholic would say...AAmen! (well, except for the drug
references)
Thanks Dan!
Plymouth Non-smoker,
Jennifer Rubenzer
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dan
"Hey, bars would be safer, and less stink
]
Subject: [bcc][faked-from][bayes] [Mpls] Re: Smoking Bans, fascism, and
illicit drugs
Public places are those such as government facilities, parks, public
schools, etc. Private businesses are not public places. They are private
property, wherein you are a guest. You do not have a right to be made
Public places are those such as government facilities, parks, public
schools, etc. Private businesses are not public places. They are private
property, wherein you are a guest. You do not have a right to be made
comfortable in a private establishment simply because you choose to enter.
Owners and t
For the record, my position on local level smoking
bans has shifted slightly since I previously posted on
the subject.
While I would not personally choose it, I would not
have a problem with a community passing a smoking ban
as long as it:
* Allowed for the existence of private clubs which
would
I've been watching this smoking ban discussion since my initial reply and it's become
so negative... But the reason I signed up for this list was to try my best to keep an
open mind and, therefore, I've come to the following conclusions. (Please don't shoot
me down as I'm saying these are my c
Mr Driscoll writes: "Why? Smoking doubles the per capita consumption of alcohol."
And where does this statistic come from? I don't believe there is any scientific
proof of this statement, only partisan rhetoric. State your sources, or is this just
inflammatory rhetoric?
Mr Driscoll writes: "P
Of course alcohol is dangerous to others if the drinker drives after
drinking enough of it. As a recovering alcoholic, I've experienced or heard
just about every story possible about the short and long-term effects of
alcohol consumption, let alone my own sweet history with drink. Mr.
Thompson's re
3. You say we "make" you inhale the secondhand smoke (see #1) but you also
"make" us stand out in freezing cold weather in most other public places
and surely I have caught a cold or two (a health risk) doing so
Shawn Marie Christenson
Central - Downtown/West
Actually, Shawn, colds
Okay. I've been watching the smoking topic go back and forth and haven't said
anything - yet. There have been many valid points made and I do see both sides.
As a smoker, I obviously like the fact that I have a place I can go in public where
I'm actually ALLOWED to smoke. I am hooked and have
This, of course is the raw truth.
It's a classic tactic for regulated industries to fight regulation by
convincing lawmakers and regulating agencies that this particular or that
particular jurisdiction is the inappropriate level for regulating.
Anti-regulation types will fight cities by saying it
Really. These non-Mpls-specific posts on this thread need to end. Now.
David Brauer
List manager
On May 21, 2004, at 4:04 PM, Steve Cross wrote:
Michael Atherton asked:
"Could you cite what part of the Declaration, Constitution, Bill of
Rights,
or any other legal requirement that specifies that
I
Michael Atherton asked:
"Could you cite what part of the Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights,
or any other legal requirement that specifies that
I have a responsibility to care for others in the society?"
How about the Preamble of the United States Constitution: "We the People of
the Unite
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 2:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Re: Smoking Ban & Public/Private
Hi guys - we've drifted completely away from Mpls on this one. Please
continue off list, if you want to continue it.
David Brauer
List manager
On May 21, 2004, at 3:03 PM, Michael At
Hi guys - we've drifted completely away from Mpls on this one. Please
continue off list, if you want to continue it.
David Brauer
List manager
On May 21, 2004, at 3:03 PM, Michael Atherton wrote:
Andy Driscoll wrote:
How truly sad it must be to be so alienated from one's own
country, one's own ci
Andy Driscoll wrote:
> How truly sad it must be to be so alienated from one's own
> country, one's own city, to hate government as something
> other than a creature of the people.
My children have ancestors who were Native Americans,
should I teach them to blindly trust their government?
My c
We might not agree on the "founding assumptions" of this country, especially
when the founders themselves hardly agreed (Hamilton v. Jefferson, 1787);
but one thing is certain, the entitlement to the pursuit of happiness cannot
come at the expense of others' happiness, and that is precisely what t
How truly sad it must be to be so alienated from one's own country, one's
own city, to hate government as something other than a creature of the
people. The Bill of Rights was not written to protect just the individual,
it was enacted to ensure that bad government not be allowed to overstep its
bou
Andy Driscoll wrote:
> Short of a ban, no business that allows smoking can protect
> employees from second-hand smoke.
I don't believe this to be a true statement. Although,
it may not be possible for businesses to protect employees
from all smoke, it may be possible to reduce the risk
of smo
Short of a ban, no business that allows smoking can protect employees from
second-hand smoke.
Libertarians want no "government" intrusion into private lives. "Government"
is us.
We are the government. That is the truism that separates us from many other
systems, including the dictatorships the
On 5/13/04 10:19 AM, "Aaron Klemz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RIGHTS AND NONSENSE
>
> These rights claims are difficult to resolve,
> especially since none of these rights are absolute:
> * The right of business owners to do as they please
> are constrained by a host of regulations.
> * The r
Thomas Searles wrote:
Why yes, we do have a few million extra dollars out here, but we are not
going to give it to you. You have to earn it. Nicollet Mall has great
potential that is not being realized today. If you make Nicollet Mall more
inviting, we who do not live in Minneapolis will visit and
Given the tone of these responses, I'm almost sorry I
said anything well, almost ... :)
It's not that I disagree with the arguments made by
advocates of a smoking ban, it's that I see that folks
are willing to overlook how the arguments that they
make suck. On both sides.
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
Mark Snyder wrote:
> On 5/12/04 10:39 AM, "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Here is my argument. If you are correct that it is not
> > technologically or financially feasible, then offering
> > businesses with permits costs little or nothing (because
> > no one would be ab
TECTED]>
To: "mpls-issues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:17 PM
Subject: [Mpls] Re: Smoking Ban Vs. other options to make Mpls more visit
worthy
> The Nicollet Mall was paid for largely by bus money, as a way to improve
> the bus service by having a
On 5/12/04 2:57 PM, "Anderson, Mark V(GE Infrastructure)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JB:
> The argument that people who work in places where smoking occurs should
> not be protected because they are not "forced to work there" is no
> argument at all. Most places of business whether they are min
Jim Bernstein wrote:
When did smoking become a "human right"? In fact, there is no such
thing as "smokers rights" so lets not elevate this "nasty habit" to the
status of a basic human right!
Mark Anderson replies:
I always thought that how you lived your own life was your own business. Rights
The Nicollet Mall was paid for largely by bus money, as a way to improve
the bus service by having a bus-only street.
So if we were to evict the busses from a street that they paid for, they
would be justified in asking for that money back. With the State taking
Minneapolis tax money, and send
62 matches
Mail list logo
