Re: [Mpls] On the smoking ban from a bar-owner
Michael Atherton wrote I see, so since my father died of a heart attack, I have have the right to ban all fried foods eaten in public places? Not to mention most meat products. Point: People have a choice to smoke or not smoke and a choice of being exposed to secondhand smoke (except for children and prisoners). Your father sitting next to me, my children or grand children and indulging in heaping platters of meat and piles of french fries and onion rings does nothing to affect my or my families health in any way. He should be allowed to indulge in those activities as much as he likes. But when he lights up a cigarette and the smoke drifts over where I or my children are forced to breathe it then his rights have ended. As my favorite social studies teacher put it back in 9th grade, Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The same applies to cigarette smoke. THAT is the Point. Steve Nelson Willard Hay 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] On the smoking ban from a bar-owner
So, would you prefer to have your friend or family member die of cancer, or have your local pub die because it relied on allowing cancer-causing drugs? Bars and restaurants have generally short lifespans, and often die quickly. My friends should not. Some bars and restaurants will go out of business during the ban. It's easy to blame the ban. Did Molly Quinn's business drop off because people wanted to check out the new digs, and there wasn't as much to lure them back as in their old location? Or was it the ban? With all respect, if second-hand smoke doesn't kill, I suppose the holocaust wasn't real and heat isn't increasing globally. You can always find an industry hack or fringe group to make the bogus assertion for you. It doesn't mean its true. Bob Spaulding Moving Forward in St. Paul while Peter McLaughlin contemplates throwing it in Reverse On Dec 9, 2005, at 1:04 AM, Dan McGrath wrote: Here's a letter to the editor penned by Sue Jeffers, owner of Stub and Herb's in SE Mpls. Hey Dan, Here is my letter to the editor, doubt it will see the light of day...post it with your excellent one on the forum! Sue Some call it spin, I call it just another lie to deceive the general public. Smoking bans damage the hospitality industry especially bars, bans cause lost revenues, lost jobs and closed businesses. Worse yet, no one is any healthier including our cities, county and state coffers. It is easy to distort the numbers. By including liquor store sales, the liquor sales become inflated. By including fast food, coffee shops and convenience stores the food sales become inflated. Omitting businesses that have already closed or were not open 3 consecutive years, distort the numbers further, implying a healthy hospitality industry. The first three months of the smoking ban showed alcohol revenues in Hennepin County grew .15%, much lower than prevous year and much lower than all other counties in the entire 7 county metro area. These numbers also included liquor stores, if those sales were removed, the revenues would show a loss. We should be showing double digit increases similar to other areas with out a smoking ban not the list of over 50 closed businesses that keeps growing longer and longer. Now add .08, a minimum wage increase and cold weather the numbers will be even more depressed causing more closed businesses and more lost jobs. The latest new study shows heart attacks rates have remained the same or increased across the country after bans were implemented and in the case of MA heart attacks increased 35%. Most people know the days of the smoke filled blue bars are long gone. Owners have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ventilation to make all our customers comfortable and it works, just ask the airports or the hospitals. Shame on the elected officials trying to gain a state wide ban on the backs of the local businesses. Elected officials have forgotten property rights should trump entitlement rights every time. Maybe like NW Airlines or Ford, bars can become a tax free zone or get state or local aid to for the thousands of lost jobs a smoking ban causes. Or maybe the local councils and commissions don't really care about the little guy after all. Sue Jeffers Stub and Herb's 612-384-4374 Dan McGrath Longfellow http://www.minnesotansagainstsmokingbans.com 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] On the smoking ban from a bar-owner
Bob Spaulding wrote: So, would you prefer to have your friend or family member die of cancer, or have your local pub die because it relied on allowing cancer-causing drugs? If you are so concerned about your friend or family member why don't you have them kidnapped and deprogrammed? Why force everyone else to met your needs? Michael Atherton Prospect Park 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] On the smoking ban from a bar-owner
Michael Atherton asked: Why force everyone else to met your needs? Right back at you, Michael. Why should many among us put up with the gut-level emotional disgust of losing friends and neighbors to cancer without helping head off the larger pressures? Why should employers put up with lost productivity caused by unnecessary disease? Why should we all pay more for medical insurance because of smoking-related problems? Why shouldn't we all have an expectation of carcinogen-free public spaces? Am I really the person being selfish? ***Most centrally***, why should everyone meet the needs of a couple bar owners that are unwilling to change with the times? Why shouldn't we respond to the credible scientific evidence, that shows first- and second- hand smoke kills? Doesn't a ban on smoking in public venues, coupled with the right to smoke elsewhere balance civil liberties pretty darn well? Why shouldn't we work on gently reducing these societal effects by phasing out the public pressures to smoke by putting a lid on this harmful behavior in our public spaces? It's the same reason we banned asbestos. But that hurt asbestos manufacturers. It's the same reason we control mercury emissions. But that hurt power producers. It's the same reason we will ban smoking in public places. But on the whole, its at worst debatable whether that hurts bars, though it will hurt some individually. But it will hurt cigarette producers. It's going to happen. If Ireland and New York City can stick with it, I think we'll be just fine. Perhaps Molly Quinn's just wasn't Irish enough. :) Bob Spaulding The Saintly City 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] On the smoking ban from a bar-owner
Bob Spaulding wrote: Why should many among us put up with the gut-level emotional disgust of losing friends and neighbors to cancer without helping head off the larger pressures? Your gut level reaction to friends dying of cancer is disgust? Not pain cause they died? What if a friend dies of MS? Or stroke? What's your gut level reaction then? How bout a car accident? Why should employers put up with lost productivity caused by unnecessary disease? Why should we all pay more for medical insurance because of smoking-related problems? Why shouldn't we all have an expectation of carcinogen-free public spaces? Everyone dies of something. We cannot legislate disease away. We can pretend that somehow if smoking were banned nation-wide, there would be fewer deaths to disease. I doubt that could ever be true. What if, genetically, we are prone to this or that disease?. So friend doesn't die of smoking related disease, but some other cancer because friend has a marker that predisposes toward cancer. Am I really the person being selfish? Maybe, but self-righteous sticks out a mile in this post. WizardMarks, Central Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] On the smoking ban from a bar-owner
Bob Spaulding responded: Michael Atherton asked: Why force everyone else to met your needs? Right back at you, Michael. Sorry, but it's the ban augments that have the contradictions. Why should many among us put up with the gut-level emotional disgust of losing friends and neighbors to cancer without helping head off the larger pressures? I see, so since my father died of a heart attack, I have have the right to ban all fried foods eaten in public places? Not to mention most meat products. Point: People have a choice to smoke or not smoke and a choice of being exposed to secondhand smoke (except for children and prisoners). Why should employers put up with lost productivity caused by unnecessary disease? Employers already have the right to ban smoking. I believe they may also have the right to non-smokers if they can show a job related factor. There is no law that requires employers to allow smoking. Employers don't have the right to determine your sexual habits although they might also result in lost productivity and unnecessary disease. Why should we all pay more for medical insurance because of smoking-related problems? That's your CHOICE, select (or start) an insurance company that only does business with non-smokers. If you're referring to Medicare, then you might also consider banning motorcycles, etc. Why shouldn't we all have an expectation of carcinogen-free public spaces? Well I guess that means that we have to ban all gas stations and automobiles. Gasoline exhaust is known to contain carcinogens . To repeat an augment that no one else had the courage to respond to: Why can't we ban all hunting so that I can hike or ski in any public space and be free of secondhand bullets. Am I really the person being selfish? Yes. Why should you have to ban something that I would want to share with friends that has no effect on you unless you elect it to? To protect our health? ***Most centrally***, why should everyone meet the needs of a couple bar owners that are unwilling to change with the times? Why shouldn't we respond to the credible scientific evidence, that shows first- and second- hand smoke kills? You must be new to this discussion. It's not just a couple of bar owners, it's about the right of individuals to make choices for themselves that involve risk. Your argument would allow you to ban anything that involves risk: rock climbing, skiing, bicycling, on and on. Doesn't a ban on smoking in public venues, coupled with the right to smoke elsewhere balance civil liberties pretty darn well? These are public venues that you must take explicit actions to visit and be affected. It is unlikely that you would ever visit all of these public venues. Why is it that I cannot have any public venues where I can smoke? Why shouldn't we work on gently reducing these societal effects by phasing out the public pressures to smoke by putting a lid on this harmful behavior in our public spaces? Hypothetically: Since I believe that Gay sex has extremely negative moral and societal effects, why can't we put a lid on it by banning Gays from meeting in public spaces? Feel free to replace Gay sex and Gays with you own personal prejudice. It's the same reason we banned asbestos. But that hurt asbestos manufacturers. It's the same reason we control mercury emissions. But that hurt power producers. Asbestos is not a substance that people knowingly partake of for pleasure and if any fool did that's their business not yours. It's the same reason we will ban smoking in public places. But on the whole, its at worst debatable whether that hurts bars, though it will hurt some individually. But it will hurt cigarette producers. I don't give a damn whether it hurts bar owners or cigarette producers. They can go to hell for all I care, and probably should. I don't want you making health decisions for me, whether it be smoking tobacco or preventing me from ending my life. These are my decisions. And I reserve the right to assemble peaceably in public with people who knowingly share a common interest and risk. Michael Atherton Prospect Park 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] On the smoking ban from a bar-owner
As far as you can tell? Sue *tore a building down* in response to the smoking ban. She evicted her flower-shop neighbor (who she really liked, and was heartbroken about it) to tear down the shop to build a patio. Kind of hard to notice a building being torn down. Stub and Herb's happens to be a clean, and pleasant bar with good staff (who all hate the smoking ban, by the by). By the way, I don't drink coffee, and hate the smell of it (I suspect that there are harmful chemicals present in the vapor rising from hot coffee). Maybe we should ban that next, and then, YOU and anyone who likes to drink coffee in public places can adapt to that, or be left out in the cold, with me and the rest of the smokers. I bet I could hire the same hacks that do ETS studies to do a coffee vapor study, and come up with alarming results. Dan McGrath Longfellow http://www.subversivepictures.com http://www.smokeoutgary.org - Original Message - From: Sean Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: mpls@mnforum.org Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 10:54 AM Subject: RE: [Mpls] On the smoking ban from a bar-owner Perhaps Ms. Jeffers problem is that she owns a dirty rundown bar in an area teeming with well-run alternatives. As far as I can tell Stub Herb's has not made any effort at all to adapt to the cold weather and the smoking ban. Give it up and adapt, otherwise you'll be left out in the cold. Sean Ryan Logan Park 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
