David is correct. A threatened watering-down was averted by phone calls and emails to several councilmembers over a the waning hours Thursday.
While it would still be best to have this go into effect sooner than March as well as all workplaces smoke-free (I can only assume that will come in time), let us all praise and laud the dozen very courageous councilmembers who stood up to the incredible barrage of pressure from tobacco-financed and unduly paranoid bar-owners to hold fast to the no-exemptions ban they passed today. 12-1 is what you call decisive, especially while fending off amendments that could have created legal chaos for the city if the ban became selectively applied. Only a policymaker can know just how bad such pressure can get, throwing all arguments and reason out of balance (which is the point of lobbying) with with reality. We pundits can only guess. Now - St. Paul. My St. Paul. It's stuck with its veto, supposedly because of the smoking room provision, which was a bow to the bar owners who convinced a couple of councilmembers there that some smoking area should be allowed, then turned on those same councilmembers and engineered the veto. The St. Paul Council should override the Mayor's veto, then quickly pass an amendment removing the smoking room provision (another unnecessary month's worth of readings and a public hearing). I understand Kelly is trying to have his veto sustained so a uniform ordinance can pass - and he can claim credit for the smoking ban they do pass. Either way, another ordinance will have to pass. This is Dave Thune's baby and he deserves all the credit for the hard work he's done out front and behind the scenes on this and all of the ordinances that thus far have passed in the Metro. Life will soon be better for the lungs of our children, not to mention us fogies. Huzzah - as someone wrote. Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 Saint Paul ------ on 7/23/04 2:09 PM, List manager wrote: > On Jul 23, 2004, at 1:44 PM, ken bradley wrote: >> Last night I was told that the final version of the ordinance is very >> watered down, which is why the majority of the council will approve >> it. The ordinance grandfather's in all bars that serve 40% food, 60% >> alcohol (I may have that backwards), and will only apply to new liquor >> licenses and restaurants. Essential the far majority of bars in >> Minneapolis will not be required to ban smoking, so the majority of >> bar employees and customers will still be exposed to second hand >> smoke, which results in thousands of deaths each year. > > Ken and others - > > I don't have the details, but I watched the debate. It passed without > exception. Several exceptions were voted down. > > If anyone has the ordinance language, please post it! > > Here are the first stories: > http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4891250.html > http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/9227157.htm > > 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
