If Michaels Hohmann and Atherton (below) wish to believe that a survey of only Minneapolis voters (http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4797883.html) is invalid because election data shows a minority of residents vote, then show us a survey that statistically represents all citizens - voters and nonvoters alike - who say they oppose a smoking ban.
A few points for our ruffled-feathered friends: 1. Voting behavior itself is absolutely no indication of feelings about a smoking ban. The fact that the Hennepin County Medical Society's anti-smoking arm would survey voters only says nothing about the survey's validity. The two are simply not linked. Obviously they surveyed voters because they want policymakers to know where likely voters stand on the issue. After all - that IS what elects them - voters. Perhaps this, too, will be a wake-up call for nonvoters to get themselves to the polls is they believe voters have too much influence on policy. Shees! 2. How can these two men (and I still consider Hohmann a friend) possibly know how a majority of residents feel about this issue? Because they asked their friends? Hmm. Because they took a statistically valid survey of their own? Where is it? There's a terribly biased assumption in their negation of the reported survey's results: that voters don't represent the majority view in Minneapolis and/or nonvoters smoke more than voters and/or that voters don't smoke and nonvoters do. Huh? 3. What we do know is that between 70% and 80% of all residents of all communities in the United States DO NOT SMOKE. That comports, then, with the survey's findings that 80% of the sample wants to ban smoking in public places. In other words, the vast majority of citizens don't smoke, and it's a far closer conclusion they would support the ban than it is to suggest the survey's sample is unrepresentative of overall citizens support. 4. Policymakers have a duty to represent the known truth about public health matters in their deliberations and voting. The data in NOT inconclusive that smoking kills smokers. And it is NOT inconclusive that smokers' smoke kills nonsmokers as well - and we're not just speaking of lung cancer and pulmonary diseases - we're speaking as well of heart attacks and other illnesses (see the Montana experience). This means that, even if a majority of citizens didn't support a ban, the health of everyone is the overriding concern, not always serving the majority's often selfish views. But since a 3-1 majority does support a ban, let the voting begin. Now, let's see if we can nitpick St. Paul's population for a majority of non-supporters. What I have yet to understand is why any opponent of the ban would ever see a doctor when they so clearly dispute the understandings and expertise of the entire medical community on the high costs of smoking for every human coming in contact with it. Would all of you stop seeing your physician if he told you to stop smoking or die tomorrow? Maybe, but that sort of irresponsible defiance should never be the basis for public policy...or medical care. Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 Saint Paul ------ on 5/27/04 11:12 AM, Michael Hohmann wrote: > Michael Atherton is critical of the Clean Air Minneapolis smoking ban > survey, and rightfully so. The Strib headline on the story totally > misrepresents survey results. The survey was limited to registered voters > who represent what percentage of city residents? And, I'd venture that > those not registered to vote may have very different feelings regarding a > smoking ban... speculation on my part, however. This survey simply gives > local politicians cover if they support a smoking ban. The broader measure > of ALL city residents of legal age to smoke would provide a more accurate > estimate of a smoking ban's popularity. After all, ALL residents use bars > and restaurants and have a stake in any outcome, as most bar/restaurant > owners would attest. I believe that registered city voters actually > represent a minority portion of the city population that should have been > surveyed, to say nothing of possibly getting input from non-city residents > that also frequent city bars and restaurants regularly. > > Michael Hohmann > Linden Hills > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Atherton Sent: >> Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Mpls] 72 >> percent support bar/restaurant smoking ban snip The List Manager posted: >> >>> ...that's what a Clean Air Minneapolis survey of city residents claims.... >>> >>> http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4797883.html >>> >> This story illustrates a few of things about the misuse of surveys: >> >> 1. It shows that surveys can be statistically valid and still misrepresent >> their implications. >> >> 2. It shows that even groups espousing "good" causes can use unscrupulous >> methods to try and achieve their ends. >> >> 3. It shows that the news media often doesn't take the time to present >> balanced arguments to the public. >> >> Michael Atherton Prospect Park 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
