What utter nonsense this is. I don't believe for a minute that any bar struggling to survive is in trouble because their drinkers can't smoke. And if it's true for even one, then something was seriously wrong with the operation to begin with.
Name-calling as a descriptor for public health advocates is scabrous. Talk about wearing your so-called working class status on your inflated chest. The contempt in which people hold other people is astounding, especially when heaping stereotyping generalizations on their targets' motives and whining as if a smoking ban was enacted to put you in your place. I call that narcissistic. "This is about me, and no one else, and all you hippie refugees drinking wine and eating vegetables are out to get me." Truth. No one is worth that sort of effort, not even the whiners. Until they became dens of poisonous gases, some bars were delightful places to grab a beer and schmooze, and I'll do it again. But not in every damn bar that exists because it might not survive without smoking. We all have out watering holes, and we'll continue to patronize them, smoking or not. Every place I've been to in St. Paul where smoking was one allowed has been packed to the gills for the last week. They haven't lost a customer. Now, this I will grant you: smoking begets drinking which begets more smoking which begets more drinking. Alcohol is the commodity of massive profit margins and anyone who does nothing but peddle more and more alcohol because their customers smoke may have to find a new job. If alcohol sales are slightly depressed by this ban, I cannot get exercised about it. Neither of those addictions helps anyone�except the drug peddler, who may or may not be addicted to both as well. Of course, a third addiction lurks in most of those places as well: pull tabs. I would wager that the more alcohol is sold, the more pull tabs are bought and wasted. Add up the costs those addictions to society impose on the rest of us and not only will costs and taxes not go up but their reduced use, we will witness fewer drunk drivers and chemical-related assaults (about 98% of assaults are driven by drug use - including the drug of choice for most people�alcohol), fewer public safety costs, health care costs, court costs, family budget-busting, and on and on. The disingenuous name-calling and elitism spouted by sour grapes will do nothing to change public policy. Thank the god of your choice. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul -- > From: "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The probelm here is this idea of elitists venturing into all the working > class establishments to try to keep them afloat just isn't going to happen. > There have been reports of anti-smokers popping in to the odd neighborhood > bar here and there to gloat, order water and fail to tip the staff, but that > novelty will quickly wear off. The tofu-vegan, wine sipping trendy rich > aren't going to "learn to bowl" and join a dart league! The idea is > laughable. Even if they were to undergo this astonishing transformation, and > started going to the working class joints like the Cardinal, next they'd > have to ban fried food, so they could force bar owners to serve "raw soup" > and sprouts and artichoke hearts with wine sauce. > > Ultimately, this smoking ban is going to start costing everyone more money. > As tax revenues from bars dry up, somebody's going to have to close the gap. > Money us poor working stiffs used to fill the city's coffers with will have > to be made up by everyone. Get ready for your taxes to go up again. > > And Jeremy, if you really want to help the business owners in your ward, > you'll start fighting this smoking ban, instead of trying to prop it up for > a bit longer. It will eventually collapse, but not until irreversable harm > has been done to many people's livlihoods. Go into the bars around NE, and > ask the owners what your position should be! > > Dan McGrath > Longfellow > http://www.subversivepictures.com > http://www.smokeoutgary.org > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeremy Wieland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I've been following the businesses that have been benefiting from the ban. > That is good. However, there are businesses that were crushed last > week-end. Many of the neighborhood bars in Northeast Minneapolis suffered > major financial loses. It is really important that people behind the > marketing to get non-smokers out focus on more than just the trendy places. > The Dakota was already smoke-free. Let's get some people into the small > neighborhood joints where businesses are currently in danger. Walk the talk > and spend some money. Start a non-smoking dart league. If you're a > non-smoker, learn to bowl. > > If businesses start to go under, the ban will be revised, just as it was in > Duluth. If the ban is to stay, non-smokers have to do a lot more than buy a > beer once per month at Chino Latino. People have got to get out. > > Jeremy Wieland > Northeast > Candidate, 3rd Ward City Council > www.jeremywieland.blogs.com REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
