OK, folks - we all need to take a *deep breath* (smoke-filled or not) on the
smoking ban thread.
The tone of the debate is getting personal, and almost all of the arguments
have been made before, often by the same folks. It's great to debate the
news, but we need to pause on the fundamentals.
It's getting personal again, folks. Cut it out or warnings will
follow immediately.
I am also noticing more non-Mpls-specific posts on the list. I'm
warning folks about those already, so stick to city issues and city
focus - no fig leaves.
David Brauer
List manager
REMINDERS:
1. Be
Mariachi music is not a health hazard! Second hand smoke is well
established as a public health hazard. Protecting the public from
preventable health hazards is a proper function of city government.
Jim Bernstein
Fulton
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
Jim Bernstein wrote:
Mariachi music is not a health hazard! Second hand smoke is well
established as a public health hazard. Protecting the public from
preventable health hazards is a proper function of city government.
So you see a difference between moral turpitude and health hazards?
I see where most of the 8th Ward candidates favor a smoking ban repeal
citing their belief that the ban is hurting Minneapolis small business owners.
But
what about hurting small business workers and the amount we as a society pay
for smoking-related health care issues? It appears the
The 8th ward city council candidates who attended last nights forum took more
than 2 positions on the smoking ban. For example, I stated that I favor
restrictions on smoking in bars and restaurants but do not support the ban in
its
current form.
I am opposed to making second hand smoke
Hennepin county smoking ban debate for Minnesota Public Radio)
Jordan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Barbara Lickness
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:40 PM
To: megan goodmundson; mpls@mnforum.org
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Smoking Ban Politics
megan goodmundson wrote:
Peter's openness to 're-visit' the smoking ban is just one more reason to support RT. Smoking is a public health concern bottom line and it is becoming more and more socially un-acceptable to smoke in public all over the world. Who wants a 're'-gressive mayor or county
Brandt Williams wrote:
I think Barb is correct here. The vote was to study the economic
impact of the
ban, however the originator of the idea to conduct the study,
commissioner Mark
Stenglein, would like the county to at least make Hennepin's ban more
like the
Ramsey county ban (with
Brandon Lacy Campos wrote:
Megan is absolutely correct. You are NOT allowed to drink alcoholic
beverages in public.
We seem to be confusing definitions. Drinking and (previously) smoking
do take place in public establishments, as Mr. Bernstein has
fervently argued. Bars and restaurants are
I don't recall any Commissioner saying they would favor repealing or amending
the ban if Minneapolis did the same thing. It sounds like the county board is
far away from repealing their ban. It sounds like some of the commissioners
voted for the smoking ban because the county is responsible for
Well well,
First of all let me begin by saying that although I was a youngster...I did
grow up in the 80s and early 90s, so I am well aware of the early years of
the AIDS crisis. I was in middle-school in the mid-to-late 80s, so I
certainly remember hearing the debates, etc. on AIDS. But thanks
Peter's openness to 're-visit' the smoking ban is just one more reason to
support RT.
Smoking is a public health concern bottom line and it is becoming more and more
socially un-acceptable to smoke in public all over the world. Who wants a
're'-gressive mayor or county commissioner for that
Megan Goodmundson wrote:
If someone wants to smoke in their own home, go for it.
Government does not interfere with drinking being
intoxicted in your own private setting but we all agree that
it is not socially acceptable or safe or healthy to be drunk
in public. So why are we
Just to clarify here I do not believe there was any vote to re-visit the
smoking ban. I believe the vote was to study the negative impact the smoking
has had on businesses in Hennepin County. With factual information it may be
possible to make recommendations that could help mitigate those who
All--
Megan is absolutely correct. You are NOT allowed to drink alcoholic
beverages in public. Just because individuals choose to ignore the law and
move about the world publicly intoxicated does not mean that it is legal for
them to do so. If, indeed, the police enforced public drinking laws
I was curious about what happened in the legislative session to stop a
more equitable statewide ban on smoking in public places. Heck, the
Governor even said he would sign something if it crossed his desk. I
guess it died in a House Committee on a voice vote:
Does this mean we need initiative and referendum in Minnesota to pass
this thing? (Something I haven't supported.) So instead of back
peddling in Hennepin County, why aren't advocates picking off more
counties and cities one by one if statewide movement is slow.
That wouldn't do it. Most
I don't think you can assume that just because one is against the
Hennepin county ban, they're also against a statewide ban.
There are people out there that support a repeal because it's hurting
businesses on the border of Hennepin county. Those people may support
repeal, but could also be
I always love a good chance to be politically incorrect, so here I go.
Attacking Peter Mcglaughin (I'm still neutral in the race for mayor and so is
our paper) for maybe even thinking out loud about reconsidering his position on
the smoking ban is unfair. I believe (even if I'm a casual
Listers:
Through my own fault, I didn't get my point across on the issue of the
smoking ban .
I'm angry and disappointed at the mayor and city council, not for
passing a smoking ban, but that they did it solely for venal and
self-agrandizing reasons. I further assert that the shoddy
A few days ago, I asked for a list-wide time out on smoking ban debate.
Notwithstanding the most recent post, I'd like to keep any discussion
offlist for now.
There will be plenty of chance to talk about it soon, but I want to let
tempers cool further and other topics to get some air. There's
Message -
From: Jim Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Michael Thompson' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; mpls@mnforum.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:55 AM
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking ban participation
Michael Thompson said In the case of the smoking ban, it is the
smoking ban proponents advocating
Hi folks -
I think everyone needs a time out on the smoking thread. There have
been plenty of angles discussed and the personal vitriol is starting to
overwhelm.
Please try other topics for awhile.
David Brauer
List manager
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at
On 4/10/05 2:52 PM, Michael Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's interesting that the class argument is brought up by a ban proponent.
I've discussed this earlier. The ban has elitist undertones to it... ban
proponents are in it for the little guy because they know better than those
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Thompson
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 2:53 PM
To: mpls@mnforum.org; Jim McGuire
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Smoking ban participation
Anyway, like I said earlier, too, I trust you will be lobbying
your city council person tomorrow about
]; mpls@mnforum.org
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 4:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking ban participation
AHA! It was bound to happen and it did! That old rhetorical hobgoblin
strict consistency gets injected into the debate about smoking
restrictions.
There is in some quarters (usually
Michael Thompson said In the case of the smoking ban, it is the
smoking ban proponents advocating for worker safety, but only in this
one sphere. Other worker safety issues don't really matter, it's just
this one.and it's a special case. If worker safety were a valid
argument, there would
Michael Thompson wrote:
In terms of the worker safety argument, like it or not, workers choose to
work there. That's a fact. (Many of them are smokers anyways. I know this,
I've worker in bars and restaurants, too.) To boil down the argument to
unemployment versus the risk of contracting heart
- Original Message -
From: Jim McGuire [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: mpls@mnforum.org
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Smoking ban participation
As to workers having choices you're partly correct. There is, however, a
class argument in all this. There are definitely
I don't believe there is any legal requirement in Mn statutes
that
prohibits taking an unfinished drink with you when you go outside to
smoke.
This would be a policy set by the individual bar. Most likely to
increase sales, by preventing patrons from refilling their drink
On 4/9/05 2:27 AM, Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even I never imagined that a smoking ban would lead to a surge of rape and
assault. That is exactly what was reported Friday on KSTP Channel 5 news. The
report was from St. Paul, but applies to Minneapolis as well. Drinks are not
allowed to
seems
relatively unlikely to occur. Plus it can be combated with education.
Allen Graetz
Lowry Hill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Mark Snyder
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 4:51 PM
To: Minneapolis Issues Forum
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Smoking Ban
In response to Michael Thompson, I have pointed out previously on this list
that similar arguments to his arguments against the smoking ban could be used
against sanitation laws or fire codes. Actually no one is forced to patronize
a business where they are likely to get sick from
Even I never imagined that a smoking ban would lead to a surge of rape and
assault. That is exactly what was reported Friday on KSTP Channel 5 news. The
report was from St. Paul, but applies to Minneapolis as well. Drinks are not
allowed to leave bars. When women leave bars to smoke, some have
1:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Smoking ban participation
In response to Michael Thompson, I have pointed out previously on this
list that similar arguments to his arguments against the smoking ban could
be used against sanitation laws or fire codes. Actually no one is forced to
patronize
-free.
Unintended consequences! Ha!
Andy Driscoll
Saint Paul
--
From: Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Subversive Pictures
Reply-To: Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 02:27:19 -0500
To: mpls@mnforum.org
Subject: [Mpls] Smoking Ban Unintended Consequences
Even I never imagined
Dan wrote:
Even I never imagined that a smoking ban would lead to a surge of rape and assault.
Uh, this is a variation on the theme, I didn't know what I was doing,
yer honor, I was __. (Fill in the blank: drunk, stoned, angry,
insulted, had too many twinkies, out of cigarettes?)
Drinks are not allowed to leave bars. When women leave bars to smoke, some
have had their drinks drugged (GHB), leading to asault and rape. Needless
to say, don't leave an unattended drink behind
I don't believe there is any legal requirement in Mn statutes that
prohibits taking an
Music venues report few problems...
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1371/5333677-2.html
David Brauer
List manager
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]
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
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Dan wrote:
Actually, I predict that drunk driving will increase as a result of the city
and county smoking bans. People who used to walk, bicycle, or hop public
transit to a bar will now be getting in their cars and driving further to
get to places which are still allowed
Well, well, well,
1. if we don't go to those bars and they dry up who
cares
2. as anti people we just don't understand how people
can enjoy anything we don't
3. we are good and true,not like you
I believe this to be a correct summary of the anti
smoking folks here. I must say there is room for
www.jeremywieland.blogs.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Tom Taylor
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 7:00 AM
To: Dan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Mpls Forum'
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking ban night 2
Your list also seems to be a bit out of date:
Tejas
Conditions change. Businesses fail. Happens
everyday.
Why should public policy be crafted not based on
public health but on some twisted idea that every
single business must survive intact as is only sans
smoking?
Businesses that can't sustain themselves without
allowing smoking perhaps
PROTECTED]
To: 'Mpls Forum' mpls@mnforum.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 5:24 PM
Subject: [Mpls] Smoking ban participation
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
] Smoking ban participation
Conditions change. Businesses fail. Happens
everyday.
Businesses that can't sustain themselves without
allowing smoking perhaps deserve to fail and be
replaced by other businesses.
Would a few bars going out of business be the end of
something of some huge value
At 07:40 PM 4/6/2005, Michael Thompson wrote:
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Mpls Forum' mpls@mnforum.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 5:24 PM
Subject: [Mpls] Smoking ban participation
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
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
I assume you smoke since the writing seems to be out of anger - could it be
that you are addicted and don't want to accept the health facts of second hand
smoke? True I can't stand smelling like a cigarette butt when I leave a bar,
but I also didn't run home to have a washdown. But what WOULD
Liz
You are committing the cardinal sin of confusing the smoky okeydokey folks
with facts.
What are a few upstart facts, when at stake is the freedom to do anything
you want, if you have more money than those you are doing it to?
A sufficient pile of money trumps any fact.
Reality is the
Liz wrote: just for the record there are no bars on this list
Absolutely NOT true. Many are bar/restaurants (virtually all bars in
Minneapolis are). Martini Blu springs to mind. When presented facts which
undermine your position, your response is to stoop to outright lying?
Typical of ban
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Dan
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 3:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Mpls Forum'
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Smoking ban night 2
Liz wrote: just for the record there are no bars on this list
Absolutely NOT true. Many are bar
The claim that virtually all bars in Minneapolis are restaurant/bars needs
to be challenged with a visit to NE MPLS. Sure you may be able to get
things to eat, snacky crap like chips and peanuts and perhaps a choice of
pizzas but I I would not say virtually all bars in Minneapolis are such.
that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. - Lord
Acton
--
Visit our weblog: http://newswired.blogspot.com
From: John Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 05:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
To: 'Mpls Forum' mpls@mnforum.org
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking ban night 2
The claim
Before I get all sorts of flaming e-mail, explain why the water cooler
had to be put out of reach of the public. Could it be that our city
council is afraid that someone may drown? Also, as to the candy, it
causes tooth decay, and obesity, and can lead to heart disease and
diabetes, is that
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Michael Thompson wrote:
Sooner or later the Minneapolis city council will come for something
that the David Shoves of the world care about, then the chickens will have
really come home to roost.
I say, More power to the David Shoves of the world!
David Shove
of
Laura Waterman Wittstock wrote:
The smoke free ordinances respond to the 80% of the population that
does not smoke and the growing evidence that tobacco smoke is harmful
to those who are smoking as well as to those who are breathing in the
secondhand smoke.
However, when you believe that
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Michael Atherton wrote:
David Shove wrote:
This is a misrepresentation and slander of most people's
motives to want to ban smoking. My own motive is SELFISH -
I (ME, D.S.) don't want PERSONALLY to have to put up with
godawful smoke. Personal. Selfish. For me. I
Actually, from a purely selfish point of view, since I don't have to work
in any of these places, I would have been happy with 80% of them
smoke-free, to match the 80% of people who don't smoke. Or even a smaller
percentage, so long as there was something not too long a drive away. But
there
Robert Lilligren wrote:
The place was full. Many people, including two smokers,
commented on how nice it was to be able to breathe cleaner
air. One smoker said, This will probably help me quit
smoking, which is, I believe, the objective of the ban activists.
This goal, and the people
This is a misrepresentation and slander of most people's motives to want
to ban smoking. My own motive is SELFISH - I (ME, D.S.) don't want
PERSONALLY to have to put up with godawful smoke. Personal. Selfish. For
me. I want it for ME.
And that is where most other people start.
I also want if for
What Mr. Atherton always wants is no government whatsoever, no public
control of any private enterprise, and that means no dictation of public
health moves to keep the air breathable. What never seems to occur to
libertarians is that Minnesota and Minneapolis have for two centuries
regulated
Perhaps we could utilize new technologies (and create
jobs) by placing air filters of a grand sort instead
of just banning everything a group finds personally
wrong. It is the spirit of compromise that is sorely
lacking in the mpls government. Unless of course big
companies (read target for one)
Dain Lyngstad edina/phillips
wrote
Perhaps we could utilize new technologies (and create
jobs) by placing air filters of a grand sort instead
of just banning everything a group finds personally
wrong.
Personally wrong was the point of the recent nonsense over congress's
rediculous overinvolvement
- Original Message -
From: Robert Lilligren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Minneapolis Issues Forum' mpls@mnforum.org
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 10:04 PM
Subject: [Mpls] Smoking ban night 2
snip of a bunch of stuff about a really neat community meeting
The place was full. Many people
This is a misrepresentation and slander of most people's motives to want
to ban smoking. My own motive is SELFISH - I (ME, D.S.) don't want
PERSONALLY to have to put up with godawful smoke. Personal. Selfish. For
me. I want it for ME.
I also want if for all the other people who want it for
The smoke free ordinances respond to the 80% of the population that
does not smoke and the growing evidence that tobacco smoke is harmful
to those who are smoking as well as to those who are breathing in the
secondhand smoke.
However, when you believe that any government controls amount to
I read the comments about the smoking ban and was curious about what was
going. To find out, I visited a cigar shop near Borders in Calhoun
Square and asked the question. I was told that the Minneapolis gestapo
(my term, not the cigar shop's) had visited the store and made them do
two things
The Local, Nicollet Mall, lunchtime: packed. The person working the door
said they had to bring extra folks in to work the kitchen. (Wife report.)
The CC Club, 26th Lyndale, 7:50 p.m. More than a few folks standing
outside smoking. Their new outdoor deck isn't finished yet.
VFW Post, 28th
Golden Valley Majors (on 394)
Packed - as usual. And, I didn't stink like smoke when I got home!
Tom Madden
Lowry Hill
On 4/1/05 6:48 AM, David Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Local, Nicollet Mall, lunchtime: packed. The person working the door
said they had to bring extra folks in to
Last night was the very successful Whittier Alliance annual meeting at Whittier
School. A big crowd was in attendance for food, music, info and business.
Afterward a few dozen neighbors met at the swank back bar of Azia restaurant
(called the Caterpillar Lounge) on 26th and Nicollet.
The place
Liz Greenbaum wrote:
I have also lived many places including overseas and don't
particularly find Minneapolis any more inflexible than other
places. As a matter of fact I used to work in Bloomington -
talk about regulations and rigidity!!! Minneapolis seems
like a piece of cake in
My problem with the no-smoking ban is once again the chipping away of personal
individual freedoms. I'm an asthmatic nonsmoker - always have been - but I take
exception with this city regulating smoking in privately owned (albeit public)
businesses. If I were a business owner of a small pub or
I have also lived many places including overseas and don't particularly find
Minneapolis any more inflexible than other places. As a matter of fact I used
to work in Bloomington - talk about regulations and rigidity!!! Minneapolis
seems like a piece of cake in comparison.
As far as the smoking
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Atherton
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 2:48 PM
To: mpls@mnforum.org
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking Ban
Jim Bernstein wrote:
Who said anything about casino gambling and commercial sex? It is
really a simple point: smoking cigarettes
Jim Bernstein wrote:
At some point Michael, you need to acknowledge that smoking in public
places is a privilege not an absolute right and that cities
do have the authority to regulate public accommodations with regard
to health and safety. But most importantly, I hope you can
To: mpls@mnforum.org
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking Ban
Jim Bernstein wrote:
The Minneapolis restrictions on smoking do not ban that
activity. Like drinking, gambling, sex (and other necessary
bodily functions) the public does put some limits on where
and when you can engage
Jim Bernstein wrote:
Who said anything about casino gambling and commercial sex? It is
really a simple point: smoking cigarettes is like a host of other
activities - it is not something you get to do whenever and
wherever you want!
Well actually you did. You said, Like drinking,
-Original Message-
From Michael Atherton
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 2:48 PM
The problem here is when it is acceptable to limit others' choices.
The Nazis (and many others) thought it was acceptable to limit the
choices of Jews by restricting them to ghettos. The Puritans
limited
Thompson
Windom
- Original Message -
From: Terrell Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: mpls@mnforum.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking Ban
-Original Message-
From Michael Atherton
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 2:48 PM
The problem here is when
Terrell Brown wrote:
[TB] Now you're comparing smoking bans to the behavior of
the Nazis? Get real.
I think that I am being very real. I guess I've just studied
too much psychology to not see a difference in the degree
of intolerance, i.e., people who do not recognize the rights
of
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking Ban
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:43:43 -0600
Jim Bernstein wrote:
The Minneapolis restrictions on smoking do not ban that
activity. Like drinking, gambling, sex (and other necessary
bodily functions) the public does put some limits on where
and when you can engage
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Lacy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; mpls@mnforum.org
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 9:18 AM
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking Ban
I'm unclear as to how a smoking ban limits ones ability to smoke. It
simple
limits where one can smoke. As a matter of fact
Bars and restaurants in Minneapolis are licensed public accommodations
and are subject to ordinances and codes of this city. People can argue
about the wisdom of a restaurant/bar smoking ban but arguing that those
establishments are private or that they have a right to run the
business as they
Jim Bernstein wrote:
The Minneapolis restrictions on smoking do not ban that
activity. Like drinking, gambling, sex (and other necessary
bodily functions) the public does put some limits on where
and when you can engage in these activities but they are not
banned outright.
We the people in order to form a more perfect union
establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL
WELFARE and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and posterity do ordain and establish this
constitution of the United States of
Hi gang -
trying to close up shop on the smoking-ban rights discussion. Some
people may not have received the last two messages, so here's a third.
Please continue the discussion off-list until something changes on the
smoking-ban front.
David Brauer
List manager
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member
Hi gang - smoking ban debate has gotten more general and less
Minneapolis-specific. Combatants are welcome to continue it among themselves
off-list. Otherwise, let's move on.
David Brauer
List manager
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL
Jim McGuire (Erin Go Bragh) wrote:
Bottom line to me is that the only case for smoking bans that holds any
weight is related to workers in the hospitality industry. If you can
prove
to me that it's impossible to servie liquour and/or food without
carcinogens from tobacco smoke in the air I'll
I am utterly amazed by the number of people who have no knowledge of
American history and thus cannot distinguish between group think and
Constitutional rights.
Not long ago, it was OK to hang the town drunk from the nearest oak tree --
for the public good. Lots of outrageous conduct has been
Jennifer L. Rubenzer writes:
/snip/ Areas where people are
smoking can be avoided via CHOICE. Where's all the pro-choice folks
on this one?
Well, this pro-choice person chooses to support the ban. Smokers can choose
to smoke outside the bar. They can choose to not smoke at all.
I provide solid info on takings, Victoria Heller responds with glittering
generalities. Well, I doubt propaganda will work in this particular issue.
Re: Choice A woman who choses contraception, abortion, or birth, is
choosing regarding her body and her future. A smoker who fills the air
I'm sorry, but I'm finding the demise of a bar that exists to provide a smoking
venue had to grieve. If it goes out of business, that implies it had very
little other attractiion to its clientele. That is, they DON'T come there for
the community or food or even beer. Once the smoking is taken
It is interesting to note that the reason the council members voted for
this measure was not to expand upon courtesy. Nor was it parental
socialism.
The primary reasons were:
1. The health of workers, especially in light of the previous few
years and lack of jobs, is of paramount
David Rust states: Where these laws have been passed in other cities,
there is always a drop-off in bar traffic at first but it does re-bound.
Vicky asks: Is the City willing to fund any financial losses until business
rebounds? And how long will that take?
I hope several lawsuits are filed
On Dec 29, 2004, at 10:49 AM, Victoria Heller wrote:
David Rust states: Where these laws have been passed in other cities,
there is always a drop-off in bar traffic at first but it does
re-bound.
Vicky asks: Is the City willing to fund any financial losses until
business
rebounds? And how
David J Rust wrote:
The primary reasons were:
1. The health of workers, especially in light of the
previous few years and lack of jobs, is of paramount importance.
No one should have to choose between their health and a paycheck,
but that was exactly what was happening when
Before Ms Heller spends any city funds to compensate those who will
claim that they are losing money because of the smoking ban, I would
like to see a more comprehensive study of the effects on business. I
don't accept Mr. Rust's claim as fact; I think the opposite has been
true in many
1 - 100 of 285 matches
Mail list logo
