--- Andy Driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> Andy and everyone else, second hand smoke has not
been proven harmful! Alcohol has been and continues to
be a great health risk yet it does support the system
with large amounts of taxws so noone suggests we rid
ourselves of this most dangerous vice.Andy doesn't
support this but he and many others rail against
tobacco and yet noone mentions the garbage burner
downtown spewing mercury and other dangerous toxins
into our air. Noone feels the need to ban cars which
poison the air and kills people and the earth. Why?
This appears to me to be a power grap for the
edification of miss guided folks trying to prove they
care only after they gave us the problems I've just
mentioned, and profited from them. Let the owners of
bars and resturants set their own agendas and let US
choose where we would like to go. Surely those who
wish for a nonsmoking (but polluted) environment will
pay to for it(such as the dakota bar and grill) and
let those who choose otherwise be able to choose. Dain
Lyngstad/edina/phillips
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
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
