Jim asks a good question, and only time will play out. What I know is that some neighborhood bars in St. Paul and Columbia Heights saw increased business last weekend, and several Minneapolis neighborhood bars lost thousands this weekend. The move was smokers. Though what I hear is that business was up in a number of places in Minneapolis last weekend we have to see if that traffic will be sustainable. Furthermore, many people consider smoking and drinking to be the same act. For example, until last week, I belonged to a group that met in Minneapolis for the sole purpose of smoking cigars. That group is now disbanded. Furthermore, we find that drinking is more efficient, less expensive more enjoyable when we do it at our homes.
The premise of the ban is that for every one of me, there is a non-smoker who will fill my place, and there should be someone like that. That person just needs to get out more. Right now the smoking ban is the law of the land, and we ought to try and make it work for everyone. If it doesn't, then the law will change. Its economics. Jeremy Wieland Circulation Director Utne magazine 1624 Harmon Place Minneapolis, MN 55403 612.338.5040 x326 www.utne.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Bernstein Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 9:59 AM To: 'Mpls Forum' Subject: [Mpls] Smoke Or Drink? I am perplexed about this claim that some bars and restaurants will fail as a result of the Minneapolis smoking restrictions. I rarely go to bars - except Adrians on 46th & Chicago - but it has always seemed to me that people go there to drink and to socialize. Why will people stop going to bars, restaurants, coffee houses, etc. simply because they are smoke free? It has been suggested that many people in Minneapolis and Hennepin County will flee to other locales. To date, that does not seem to be happening very often and I for one doubt that it will make much of an impact. From most Minneapolis neighborhoods, heading over to St. Paul (especially with $2.50 gas) just to smoke - seems to be an unlikely regular event. FYI, did anyone notice that the hospitality industry in partnership with the tobacco and alcoholic beverage industry worked so hard to kill a statewide restaurant/bar smoke free law in the Legislature? This, after screaming loudly last year during the debate on the Minneapolis smoke free ordinance that a statewide law was needed rather than a patchwork of municipal or county actions! There are rumors that the industry strategy is going to be seeking repeal of the smoke free ordinance in Minneapolis and other communities. Minneapolis residents need to be asking City Council candidates if they support a repeal of the smoke free ordinance and to put them on record as supporting or opposing repeal! Jim Bernstein Fulton -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Thompson Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 7:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Mpls Forum' Subject: Re: [Mpls] Smoking ban participation This is exactly one of the points I made to my city councilperson and the various state legislators I mailed and emailed regarding the ban. My original point was, and still is, this: I suspect 99% of smoking ban proponents will never stoop low enough to patronize 99% of the bars affected by the ban. I'll bet my paycheck that virtually NO ban proponents will ever deign to set foot in Adrians or the Cardinal Bar or any of the working class establishments in NE. The ban is about elitists being able to listen to "jazz" at their whim without having to shower when they got home. The bars that will struggle to survive.....well, that's just tough luck. I believe many smoking ban proponents wanted their trendy jazzy-spots to be smoke free for their own selfish interests, but packaged it as a "public health" measure. Incredibly disingenous. One of the inherent qualities of the ban was a subtle elitism espoused by its proponents. Smoking is, for the most part, a habit of the lower SES classes. Not only did ban proponents know what was better for people, but in the adoption of the ban an implicit patronization was occuring through the "legal" protection of these less informed individuals to protect them from themselves. This is a slippery slope that that is bound to occur again...... pushed by a city council emboldened by abdication of personal choice and spine by their constituents. How pathetically sad. Mike Thompson Windom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Wieland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 4/6/2005 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 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
