If a delay and a task force allows a more thorough and thoughtful presentation of the reasons to issue a complete ban on smoking in public accommodations already regulated by other health measures, then fine.
But the beverage association - a front for tobacco companies in this matter - has had the good fortune to have both money and a disproportionate voice in these deliberations already. Do not be fooled by civil rights arguments or fear-mongering over the perceived collapse of livelihoods. Neither has a leg up on the public health issues involved, those issues being precisely the same as all other health requirements in the service of food and beverage establishments. If you can't serve dirty water, contaminated food or drinks, filthy floors and storage areas, you shouldn't be able to have foul air as the source of breathing in those same places. Let's repeat again to ourselves: this is about increased liquor sales and profits, not smoking rights. Alcohol - the other addictive substance in these places - is sold in far greater quantities when smokers are drinking and smoking. They feed off each other and increase alcohol consumption by a significant amount - often dangerous amounts. Bar owners using smoking to increase liquor sales are as disingenuously self-serving as any major polluter who fights any attempt to stifle profits over the children and public health. In any case, it's murder by degrees. Smoking encourages drinking which encourages more smoking and so forth. Smokes aren't sold by the ounce, but alcohol is - and if you can sell more of it when drinkers are smoking than when they are not, then you sure as hell want your customers smoking no matter what the smoke is doing to them and the people and workers around them. We subordinate "rights" to the public interest all the time. This is, repeat, among the more obvious of reasons to put whatever "rights" people believe smokers and bar owners have to serve the public health. Period. No exceptions. No smoking rooms. No nothing but a ban. Why? Because once one exception is made, every vested interest will believe they should be the exception, the result being chaotic competition for the exceptions and lawsuits clogging the works. No court will ignore a well-crafted complete ban, but bans that are seen as selective will be struck down as discriminatory. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul on 6/19/04 10:51 AM, List Manager wrote: > Five-week postponement, plus a new task force. > >> From the Strib: > > Mayor R.T. Rybak, whose position had been less than clear, said the action > wasn't a cynical move to delay a ban. "I fully intend to sign a smoking ban > that is well-crafted," Rybak said. > > And Council Member Scott Benson, who is viewed as the crucial seventh vote > for passage, said: "The issue is not whether we are going to adopt a > resolution. We are. The issue is not whether we are going to have a long > delay. We are not." > > http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4836372.html > > David Brauer > List manager 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
