Are there issues? Has noone reas the letters to the
editor many folks have questioned the poll taken and
have asked why if some resturants are smoke free as
are some bars why not let the owners decide which is
more profitable. The dfl has control over political
correctise so many large companies
On Jul 28, 2004, at 2:16 PM, Michael Atherton MA wrote:
MA Okay, enough of this theoretical quibbling. I contacted the
Vancouver Health Department and checked the city's ordinance.
Their Smoking Rooms are required to have completely separate
heating, cooling, and ventilation systems. These
Mark Snyder wrote:
I'm willing to admit that even with the concerns that I and
others have expressed about it, the smoking rooms idea may
well be valid.
But with virtually nobody showing interest in it and with the
smoking ban ordinance already passed by city council and signed
by
On 7/29/04 2:35 PM, Michael Atherton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Snyder wrote:
But with virtually nobody showing interest in it and with the
smoking ban ordinance already passed by city council and signed
by the mayor, it's also pretty much moot, at least for the
immediate future. I
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking Ban: What to do now?
Jim Bernstein wrote:
Mr. Atherton - You can believe whatever you want if you changed the
wording of the question but, the question as asked is precise and not
misleading!
As I pointed out earlier, you will never know what
Mark Snyder wrote:
I am ignoring the smoking rooms idea.
The reason for that is because, apart from Mr. Atherton,
NOBODY [emphasis added] in Minneapolis seems to be advocating
for that position.
How widely held a belief is does not speak to its validity.
In 1963 very few people were
On Jul 28, 2004, at 9:38 AM, Michael Atherton MA wrote:
MA First of all, I think that there is a lot of confusion in your
post between ventilation systems for entire bars and restaurants
and those for limited confined areas.
AR Nah, I am pretty sure I am not confused here at all. HVAC
(Heating,
Andrew Reineman wrote:
AR Nah, I am pretty sure I am not confused here at all. HVAC
(Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning) systems in buildings replace
air four to six times an hour on average. These systems recirculate
the air throughout the whole building to even out the
On 7/28/04 9:38 AM, Michael Atherton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Snyder wrote:
I am ignoring the smoking rooms idea.
The reason for that is because, apart from Mr. Atherton,
NOBODY [emphasis added] in Minneapolis seems to be advocating
for that position.
How widely held a belief is
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Smoking Ban: What to do now?
the simple point is ... when there is smoking I don't have a choice to
go there. Because of a smokers habits my choices are taken away - and
believe me those are a lot of choices.
the simple point is ... the option to smoke is not taken away from
Dan McGrath
The simple point here that everyone seems to overlook, is
that both smoking, and being exposed to second hand smoke are
personal choices. ... We have a City Council which now
wants to make our personal decisions for us.
[TB] Amazing the number of people that don't realize
Mark Snyder wrote:
Here's where I think Mr. Atherton's logic fails.
The problem I see is with the statement when it has no
direct impact on them
The point that supporters of the newly-passed smoking ban
wanted to make is that, whether as employees in a bar or
restaurant or merely
- Original Message -
From: Terrell Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Minneapolis Issues Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 6:09 AM
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking Ban: What to do now?
Dan McGrath
The simple point here that everyone seems to overlook, is
that both smoking
Re: the title of this thread:
The mayor signs the smoking ban today at 11:15 a.m. at Bryant-Lake Bowl,
Bryant Lake St. There are obviously two clearly held philosophical beliefs
about the ban, but the debate at this point has been well (and repeatedly)
documented and doesn't, IMHO, fit the what
On 7/27/04 7:11 AM, Michael Atherton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not clear at this point if Mr. Snyder is arguing that
Smoking Rooms will not be able to protect people or if he
is just ignoring them. Let's assume the latter.
I am ignoring the smoking rooms idea.
The reason for that is
Elizabeth scribes, in part
the simple point is ...
Indeed.
Our violence catches up with us sooner or later. Blowback, Big Tobacco
style. Nicotine speaks louder than words. It hurts. It hurts really bad.
As Big Tobacco fights to addict ever more people -- mostly the young and the
poor
Server:NS.VISI.COM
- Original Message -
From: Terrell Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Minneapolis Issues Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 6:09 AM
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking Ban: What to do now?
Dan McGrath
The simple point here that everyone seems to overlook, is
that both smoking
Such abusive language, and a very well crafted response, as well!
Dan
- Original Message -
From: Terrell Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Smoking Ban: What to do now?
Non smokers have always had smoke-free
- the simple point is ... the primary purpose of governernment is to
govern - to create laws, regulate, administer etc. I could say the
primary purpose of the government is to issue my marriage or driver's
license or have 911 availible 24/7 or whatever. It's all the above, and
as was mentioned
Mark Snyder wrote:
I am ignoring the smoking rooms idea.
The reason for that is because, apart from Mr. Atherton, nobody in
Minneapolis seems to be advocating for that position. I could
be wrong, considering that Rocco Forte chose to close his task force
to the public, but I can't
I never said that respecting the rights or choices of others is
an easy task. You might have to consider alternatives that
do not match your personal goals. You might need to reign
in your evangelical fervor. You might actually have to take
the views of others into account. I have
On 7/27/04 6:58 PM, Michael Atherton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Snyder wrote:
I am ignoring the smoking rooms idea.
The reason for that is because, apart from Mr. Atherton, nobody in
Minneapolis seems to be advocating for that position. I could
be wrong, considering that Rocco Forte
I doubt the end of western civilization is eminent as the result of a semi-smoking
ban. Smoking, much like alcohol consumption, is a regulated behavior. For the sake of
'freedom should we extend both to those under 18 YOA? At our behest, government
protects us (the greater public) from that
OK, Mr. Atherton, I will bite on the smoking room question, although
the point seems to be mostly moot right now with the passage of the
smoking ban in Minneapolis.
For me it comes down to the ventilation system in the bars themselves,
and the effectiveness those systems might or might not
My friends and fellow smoking-ban advocates;
We are in a hopeless discussion with at least three men and at least one,
perhaps two women, whose hatred for any form of government is such an
obsession that they are beyond the point of persuasion on government's
having anything having to do with
Jim Bernstein wrote:
Mr. Atherton - You can believe whatever you want if you changed the
wording of the question but, the question as asked is precise and not
misleading!
As I pointed out earlier, you will never know what percentage of
residents would have supported banning smoking in bars
On 7/26/04 3:41 PM, Michael Atherton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is my basic point: If people are unwilling to respect the rights and
choices of others when it has no direct impact on them, how are they likely to
do so in circumstances involving personal risk? That is, if you are so
The simple point here that everyone seems to overlook, is that both smoking,
and being exposed to second hand smoke are personal choices. Anyone who
chooses to walk into a bar is choosing to expose themselves to second-hand
smoke, along with bad breath, body-odor, and loud music which may be
the simple point is ... when there is smoking I don't have a choice to
go there. Because of a smokers habits my choices are taken away - and
believe me those are a lot of choices.
the simple point is ... the option to smoke is not taken away from
smokers. They can go puff all they want still
Ahhh, reading another one of M.A.'s patented inane analogies. Banning
smoking in indoor locales is the first step on the road to fascism. GET
REAL!!!
Rick
Keewaydin
On Jul 23, 2004, at 7:40 PM, Michael Atherton wrote:
Jim Bernstein wrote:
Given that 80% or so of people living in Minneapolis
I think the ban is elitist, and the marginal reduction in health risk for
non-smokers who only go out occasionally is not worth infringing upon
everyone else.
But it's probably going to pass now that it has the mayor's support.
What do to now? Is it worth trying to unseat a council member (or
Why do you think the ban is elitist?
With all the scientific and emotional arguments raging back-and-forth,
elitism is a new one.
David Wilson
Loring Park
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Mike Jensvold wrote:
I think the ban is elitist, and the marginal reduction in health risk for
non-smokers who
What about the people who are constantly exposed to second-hand smoke
who work there - this is a major infringement on their health. I
remember working many hours as a server years ago in college - it was
horrible, and I have since become very sensitized to smoke exposure. And
that everyone
Mike writes:
What do to now? Is it worth trying to unseat a council member (or two) in
order to undo the ban?
I would say no. There are more important issues than the smoking ban.
But, it might be fun to try.
Mike you are in a ward (the Tenth) that will be changing anyway, but some
Ban: What to do now?
Why do you think the ban is elitist?
With all the scientific and emotional arguments raging back-and-forth,
elitism is a new one.
David Wilson
Loring Park
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Mike Jensvold wrote:
I think the ban is elitist, and the marginal reduction in health risk
Why do you think the ban is elitist?
With all the scientific and emotional arguments raging back-and-forth,
elitism is a new one.
David Wilson
Loring Park
Probably because smoking is primarily a phenomena of the lower
social-economic classes. The more people are poor, less educated,
are
thinking!
Jim Bernstein
Fulton
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Atherton
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 7:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking Ban: What to do now?
Jim Bernstein wrote:
Given that 80% or so of people
37 matches
Mail list logo
