[Mpls] smoking ban

[Rick Norby]

A very thoughtful and well written piece. I appreciate it.

Rick Norby
Keewaydin
Planet Earth
Expanding Universe



On Thursday, June 3, 2004, at 09:37  AM, gemgram wrote:

> I know people get in trouble addressing a particular person when doing 
> a
> Post on the Issues Forum.  Perhaps even slander and defamation might be
> allowed when done in the third person, or when "properly" posed as a
> question.  I remember being outraged when Ed Felien was inappropriately
> attacked in just such a manner when he was running for office. For that
> reason I appreciate being addressed personally by both Rick and David 
> Shore.
> Meaningful things that you care about should never be discussed in a
> detached de-personalizing third person manner, so thank you to both for
> caring enough (even though disagreeing with me).
>
> I sincerely hope there are bars for David Shore to go to that are smoke
> free.  I DO wish there were bars that were non-smoking and offered good
> music for Rick.  The problem is that many who support the "Ban" do not 
> seem
> to understand that the issue is not about THEM.  I did not "dismiss the
> opposition with a snide butt-kicking jeer?", I attempted to address 
> with
> humor what appeared to me to be a "snide butt-kicking jeer" that 
> hopefully
> Eddie also meant as humor. And by the way, I am not "opposition" to
> anything, other than perhaps tyranny against individuals in the name of
> "Political Correctness". Heck, I wish everyone would choose to quit 
> smoking!
>
> The issue is not to limit the opportunities for David or Rick. The 
> issue is
> also not to limit other people's opportunities. The issue IS whether 
> they,
> the "Smoke Banners", have the right to make the world conform to them 
> and
> ONLY them.  What seems to be lost in the discussion is the person that 
> the
> ordinance is aimed at - the person who owns the bar and pays his or 
> her own
> money to make a business as he or she feels is right.
>
> So David and Rick (and others of like mind), please DO gather together 
> a
> great group of like minded people, and start a non-smoking bar that 
> brings
> in great bands and musical groups.  Start such a great bar that it 
> makes
> smokers refrain from the filthy habit for a couple of hours just to be 
> able
> to get into such a great bar.  In fact make it so successful that you 
> can't
> get into it because it is so crowded.  Heck, if 70% of this MPLS Issues
> Forum alone joined you it would be a very successful bar.  So 
> successful
> that other similar copycat bars will then also spring up.  As 
> successful
> business is always copied in our free market system. Also, please do 
> NOT go
> to bars who do allow smoking, and just as importantly tell the owners 
> why
> you are boycotting them.  I sincerely hope many owners of "smoking 
> bars"
> will decide it is good business to change and run a smoke free bar.
>
> I truly do sympathize with both David Shove and Rick, and do think they
> should have businesses that cater to them. In fact if there were a law 
> that
> prevented the operation of a bar catering to non-smokers, I would be 
> in the
> forefront of fighting it.  The problem is that the "Pro-Banners" are 
> NOT
> advocating for themselves to be able to go to a bar of their choice.  
> They
> advocate to NOT ALLOW other consenting adults to go to a bar of THEIR 
> choice
> and to NOT ALLOW the use of a legal substance in a business dedicated 
> to
> that use.
>
> It is not the tyranny of the 20% over the 80%.  It is not the attempt 
> create
> more personal freedom for the 80%.  It IS the attempt to limit the 
> freedom
> of other consenting adults from partaking of a "LEGAL" substance in an
> establishment where the owner wants it to be consumed in conjunction 
> with
> another legal substance which he or she sells in that establishment.
>
> But Rick and David, please be fair minded enough to think about your 
> stance
> on the issue.  How would either of you like it if the City banned the
> drinking of alcohol in Minneapolis bars, or the playing of music in
> Minneapolis bars?  I am sure you would NOT.  Just as some of us who do 
> not
> care about smoking still do not think that it is either ethical or 
> right to
> ban businesses from allowing the use of legal substances. I would ask 
> each
> of you to think of the alternative, a City with closed clubs where only
> members could come and listen to good music, while having a drink.
>
>
> If it is a legal substance for use by consenting adults then allow its 
> use
> and the freedom to use it within specific buildings and businesses 
> dedicated
> to its use.  If not, then make it an illegal substance. Right now 
> people
> seem to be advocating  limiting the second hand smoke in the one place 
> where
> their IS choice.  People CAN choose to frequent an establishment or 
> not.
> People can also choose to work or not work in such an environment.  
> While in
> my youth there was forced labor on plantations in the South, I have not
> heard of forced labor in Minneapolis.  The hazards of many professions 
> far
> exceed the dangers of second hand smoke. (Perhaps we should ban after 
> hours
> convenience stores or the police departments?  In my mind those jobs 
> might
> also be, and often are, far more dangerous?)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now for a another related "Issue".  Good move by a politician!
>
> I happen to be pro-choice for several things. I must admit to no small
> amount of disappointment in some of my Democratic Party colleagues.
> Colleagues who seem to have gone to sleep while dreaming of liberal 
> freedoms
> and political correctness and awoken as close minded as some 
> Republicans
> sometimes seem; and willing to curtail freedoms of choice for others. 
> And
> come awake with what is apparently a smug self righteousness and moral
> outrage about smoking in bars that would make the moral majority green 
> with
> envy. It reminds me for all the world of the moral majority's stance on
> wanting to outlaw "Choice" for women, but at the same time being 
> opposed to
> birth control.
>
> It is good to see that RT Rybak can at least see the forest through the
> political correct trees.  Though I do not always agree with RT Rybak on
> issues, this is certainly one where he has had the courage to stand 
> for that
> personal freedom, and not bow to the tyranny of the "Moral Majority".  
> Even
> if he did quit smoking himself. Of course RT probably remembers that he
> CHOSE to quit.   So HIP, HIP, HIP for RT!
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I hope I can again post to the "Issues" Forum, but do not count on it. 
> It
> has been hinted that opposing opinions are sometimes not welcome.
>
> Jim Graham,
> Speedy Block Club, Ventura Village Neighborhood, Phillips Community 
> Planning
> District, Sixth Precinct, Sixth Ward; District 61A, City of 
> Minneapolis,
> Hennepin County, Fifth Congressional District, State of Minnesota, 
> United
> States of America. (and sometimes other places too).
>
> REMINDERS:
> 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at 
> mplslist at tcq.net 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:mpls at mnforum.org
> Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls