-------------------------------------------------
Please - Take the St. Paul Job Shadow Survey
Just 15 Questions:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=70658501784
-------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where Paul Kuettel is getting his
information about the rudeness of the pro-ban people.
I watched the proceedings on TV and, from what I could
see and hear, both sides were civil. That is, there
were no attempts to interrupt the other side's
speakers.
The anti-ban people seemed to be arguing that their
businesses would be hurt, that patrons and workers
have a choice not to enter a smoking establishment,
and that they should be free to run their businesses
as they choose.
Whether some bars and restaurants will be hurt is an
empirical question so, in the absence of real data, it
can be argued either way. The argument is that smokers
will stay home or go to neighboring communities.
Personally, I can't imagine that people go to bars for
the purpose of smoking. They go for the companionship
(however dubious) they find there. After all you can
smoke and drink alone if that's what you are really
after. So, one would imagine that smokers, for the
most part, will put up with the inconvenience of
having to duck out once in awhile for a smoke.
The argument that bar and restaurant owners should be
free of health regulations is patently ridiculous.
Should they also be free to fill their places with
harmful chemical sprays to kill pests? What's the
difference?
The choice argument also falls apart. The logic behind
the argument that employees who don't want to be
exposed to smoke can work elsewhere would do away with
smoke free workplaces in all businesses, not just
theirs.
Another argument put forward was that a ban should be
statewide, not just local. Of course the people who
take that position also lobby against the statewide
ban or, at least, have done nothing to see one
enacted. Bans in a few places like St. Paul,
Minneapolis and Duluth are the way to the statewide
ban that the CofC claims it would support.
If it's true that some businesses cannot survive
unless they cater to a habit as unhealthy as smoking,
do we want them to survive? I'm sure the surivability
argument was made when cigarette vending machines were
outlawed too. It wasn't accepted then and it shouldn't
be accepted now.
I thought it was fitting that the anti-ban
presentation finished with someone denying there was
any evidence of harm from second-hand smoke (I think
his earlier statement denying any evidence of harm
from smoking period might have been a slip of the
tongue).
Thanks to Dave Thune for getting the ball rolling on
this important public health measure.
Charlie Swope
Ward 1
_____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
