All right, Michael, since you asked and I have posted many (long) views on advantages and realities of banning smoking in bars and restaurants, I will, by dint of disclosure state flatly that I am not a paid (or unpaid) lobbyist for any organized interest group. I am one voice among a majority that support smoking bans in both cities (and everywhere else, for that matter).
I work and have worked in service of the public interest for 40 years, and I remain convinced that those who wish to characterize any regulation imposed for the benefit of the public health and public interest have very narrow views of what "public" means and what "private" affords. 1. I have rarely seen anyone opposed to the public interest not personally invested in their own private use or patronage of public accommodations, including owners. When people suggest that we should leave all businesses alone to operate as private entities, they presume to grant anarchy to business when, in fact, citizens in a free society also have a responsibility to society and not just to themselves. Free and democratic societies also operate on a system of laws that govern (some say too much) our behavior - like driving sober, stopping for signs and semaphores that demand same, cooking fresh food, free of disease and serving it to any and all who might enter the premises to consume it. 2. In bars and restaurants, as with other places with the privilege - yes, privilege - of doing business with and for the public at large - there are codes to follow that ensure the public health and safety - roofs that don't leak, gas lines that don't leak, water mains and plumbing that don't leak, cooking equipment kept spotless and disease-free, mouse- and rat-free storage areas (including their droppings), dispensing equipment at the bar, display cases, restrooms and their equipment for human wastes and cleansing, fire codes limiting the numbers of customers allowed, exit signs and egress paths, building materials, maintenance of public rights of way outside their establishments - like sidewalks, driveways, etc. Restaurants and coffee shops use the public rights of way to make money, rights of way that were supplied by the public largesse. Codes and rules and regulations like those are transparent for most customers, everything pretty much assumed to be safe if the doors are open. Not always the case, of course, but in those instances, the danger is rarely as massive as the danger we continue to allow: a nicotine-riddled atmosphere that can addict by osmosis, full of poisonous gases that turn liquid and corrosive when inhaled and cooled in the lungs, throat, stomach of workers and customers alike. And we don't regulate this? Owners and customers have no choice when it comes to all those other public health and safety protections - they're in place or the place is closed down. Period. 3. Bars and restaurants that serve liquor and allow smoking are essentially peddling two of the most addictive drugs in creation in tandem. Liquor purveyors and drinkers/smokers all know that one feeds the other. Alcoholic drinks, I recall all too well, increase the urge to smoke and the drying effects of both smoking and alcohol further push the customer into buying more alcohol, thinking the cold and wet are soothing the hot, smoky, drying air they're inhaling (willingly or unwillingly). Drinks and beer are extremely, perhaps excessively, profitable. Now, paying those prices is, indeed, a choice that most make without a whimper (or, if whimpering they do it as they fork over the big bucks). Do not be fooled by bar owners who claim "rights" and "choice" are driving their noble purposes. It's money - and lots of it - and more of it when booze is being bought by the gallon, compared to the quart, when smoking patrons are trying to keep their whistles wet. Smoking increases booze consumption, of course, creating far greater risks for drunkenness and drunk driving than if consumed in more moderation where smoking is not present. 4. Any claim that tries to refute reports of increased revenues for businesses in states and cities (California, Manhattan, Florida and Duluth, among them) where smoking has been smoking has been banned are reaching desperately to preserve the status quo. Even for the Duluth bar that sent a letter screaming about a 50% loss in liquor sales must be seen in the proper light. Oh, yes, liquor sales probably did drop 50+%, but the period reported was the first month following the imposition of the ban a year ago - from April 2003 to May 2003. Now, please, that is hogwash as a measuring tool for a ban's impact on business. For every bar and restaurant like that guy's, there are hundreds of others in Duluth and across the nation, including voluntary bans in St. Paul and Minneapolis restaurants, where the revenue increases are real and sustained. I'd be willing to bet our renegade complainer in Duluth has already seen an increase in food sales (if he wants them) since then. 5. As I suggested yesterday, most business owners complaining about a smoking ban (beyond the obvious drop in otherwise very profitable liquor sales) are very likely themselves smokers who want to be able to smoke in their own businesses and not have to stand outside with the other polluters to get their nicotine fix. 6. Now, as to the business of the state employing millions to curtail smoking: any suggestion that the state is diverting dollars to smoking cessation. The state has already usurped much of the money secured from the tobacco settlement, now several years old. That money, filtered through a state-appointed nonprofit - the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco - was supposed to address the issues of tobacco sales and use and to work to stem both in Minnesota. As Mr. Hohmann suggests, conservatives attacked MPAAT for attempting to convince cities to do exactly what St. Paul and Minneapolis are now contemplating and other towns around the state have already passed: ban smoking in public accommodations. I suggest the state stole that money from the settlement's prime objective as it is...to stop smoking in public places and thus stem the generational addiction that comes with exposure of children and nonsmoking adults to nicotine. Perhaps much to the chagrin of some, the state has every right and duty to examine the possibilities of local (and statewide) bans on smoking in public places. That is only just compensation for raiding the settlement fund for purposes other than tobacco cessation activity. One final point, and we'll make it a question: how in hell can anyone suggest that a competitive advantage is accorded any business when a smoking ban applies to all businesses seeking the same bloc of patrons. And spare me the rubric, "They're all going to run to the suburbs to smoke while they drink." Give us a break. People want geographic convenience one heck of a lot more than they want smoking. Do you really believe all University students are going to pile into cars and head for the Bloomington strip just to smoke? People will patronize their local pubs, smoking or smoke-free. That's the reality. And, in truth, most of the smoke-free bars are likely to draw a huge increase in suburban clientele wanting smoke-free drinks. Now, let's get on with bring ourselves into the 21st Century, health-wise. Of course, we need a statewide ban as well, but, R.T., and Mayor Kelly, and councilmembers, a statewide ban is far more likely to pass AFTER the state's two largest cities, not before. We're being watched with an eagle eye to see if we have the guts to weigh in for the public's health. You will be supported 3-1, 4-1, for taking these critical steps, no matter the composition of your constituencies. Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 Saint Paul ------ > Today's STrib reports that several million dollars in state funds are > currently being used to support anti-smoking campaigns statewide, with at > least $500K going toward anti-smoking campaigns in Mpls-St.Paul. The > article discusses the appropriateness of using state funds in efforts to > change local laws and ordinances. The old MPAAT group was reprimanded for > similar activity that supported local smoking bans rather than efforts > targeted at individuals. There are many prime contractors and > subcontractors involved in developing these plans and strategies, and in > spending these funds. > > I have a question for list members- > In an effort to get full disclosure-- Are any of the smoking ban proponents > posting to this list under contract/subcontract to promote local smoking > bans? Have you received any anti-smoking funding for such efforts over the > past decade? Same question to those opposing such a ban. If this list is > being used to sway public opinion via a paid lobbying effort, I think list > members would appreciate knowing it. Thanks in advance. > > Michael Hohmann 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 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
