on 5/30/04 12:00 PM, John Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > You had me on board until I read this > >> The numbers seem to be on the side of the smoke-avoiders, because there are >> lots more of us... >> > Still, granting you the latitude that your numbers are true, why on Earth > would a bar/restaurant owner ever allow smoking in their establishments? From > the sounds of it businesses are throwing away money but not self enforcing the > proposed ban. > > John Harris > webber-camden
Why would you not stay on board? Why would you drop off because of that statement - a mere conclusion based on numbers Bob Treumann assembled. C'mon John, no one ever had you on this issue. Still, the answer to your question is clearer. The bar and restaurant owners 1) panic over the very idea of what they view as a sea change in their operations and autonomy. That alone is a threat. The bottom line is liquor sales - and, for all that, they see liquor sales as the be all and end all of their success. Alcohol begets smoking begets drinking begets smoking, and so on. Less smoking, less drinking by volume. 2) Bar/restaurant owners who smoke themselves want the freedom to smoke on their own premises (even when their wives would not at home). It's much easier for a nonsmoking owner to look at this ban with a more objective eye. Oh, they, too, may fear a loss of business, but Treumann's numbers are more convincing to a nonsmoking owner than to a smoking one. 3) The matter of the principle of regulation. Despite having to kowtow to other health regulations and building codes, entrepreneurial resistance to anyone telling them what they can and cannot do is so ingrained, they'll forego increased sales and profits to make a point, and they'll do so by arguing the very opposite: that they'll be driven out of business. There is no enforcement of "proposed ban(s)." It remains proposed. Enforcement of a ban is easy. People will turn them in quickly if they dare to allow smoking in their facilities. This is not going to be optional and it will no longer be a question of "How do I minimize my nonsmoking area just to get by the inspectors?" Most places required to set aside such sections are giving token nods to the law. And nonsmoking in Minnesota rarely means smoke-free. Smoke knows no sectioning in an open restaurant - it finds its way into our faces wherever we sit. But when NO smoking is allowed, then ANY smoke will offend enough for enforcement. One more thing: Preparing for a trip to Boston next week, I had occasion to be concerned over a meeting in a downtown Boston hotel bar. My immediate fear was having to put up with smoke since, to me, bar=smoke. To my great delight, my sister and sister-in-law both wrote back to assure me that smoking is allowed *nowhere* in Boston or Cambridge anymore. That means that at least three of the major East Coast international cities (New York, Boston and Miami), along with the nation's third and fourth largest cities - Los Angeles and San Francisco - are smoke-free. Lord knows how many major cities and states (like Florida and California) have or are about to enact smoking bans in public places that we have yet to hear from. In all cases, the data are in and no one has been shut down by a smoking ban and revenues have increased 8%-10% while smoking has decreased an average of 12%-14% - at least in New York. Now, someone tell me this: what other explanation is there for all the resistance here in the Midwest - other than pure, unadulterated and unsubstantiated fear and crackpot individualism? I say there is none. Minnesota used to be ahead of the curve on such issues, the coasts the last to crumble. Now, here we are, one of the first states to ban smoking in public buildings battling to the death over doing what the most cosmopolitan cities in the world did long ago by comparison: ban smoking where people gather. This ought to be a slam dunk for the entire state of Minnesota, let alone the Twin Cities Metro. Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 Saint Paul ------ 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
