> Mr. Surmak's argument would be stronger if it wasn't for the fact that > the St. Paul Ban didn't even stop smoking in 50 percent of the drinking > establishments in St. Paul. There are a lot more than a "small number > of bars" open to smoking. Plus, although I have no proof, I am > guessing some of the bars are playing fast and loose with their alcohol > v. food sales as I can't for the life of me figure out how Billy's Bar > on Grand Avenue can get by as a "smoking bar."
when you say drinking establishment do you mean your corner bar or would that include restaurants? this is in reference to your 50%. while Billy's does do a decent food business. for every plate of nachos that goes out, i bet 4 beers goes with them. I have been there plenty of times and it was drinks only. even if someone has food, it only takes 2 big beers to match the price. what the better question is if going no smoking is so lucretive, why did billy's get an exemption and miss out on the windfall? no need to answer as that question has been kicked around enough here. John Harris webber-camden 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
