> 1) Will a smoking ban really put people out of business? Every statistic available (number of license holders per city, sales tax receipts, etc.) Show that smoking bans do not put bars and restaurants out of business. The tobacco industry dusts off the antecdotes of bankrupt bars in every city a ban is considered in. This results in (rightfully) scared business owners who are afraid they'll lose everything they've built up. The facts don't bear it up. Do not believe the lies of the tobacco industry.
> 2) Do the health risks of second hand smoke justify the > policy, even if some businesses MIGHT go out of business? It has been established beyond doubt that second hand tobacco smoke creates major health risks - especially to employees. We have demanded protection for other workers in every other industry. Ignoring the health of these workers just because they aren't highly paid is not an option. > 3) What are the rights of business owners and patrons in this case? The same rights as anyone else who opens their doors to the public: Equal access, safe accomodation, and responsible behavior in return for making a living in our society. > 4) If the city imposes this ban, is there anything that the city > can or should do to either reduce the risk for bar owners > or compensate them for potential losses? We have already discussed making available some funding for spruce up/fix up or new marketing efforts. To date we have not heard a definite response from the business' representatives. We will also endeavor to enact our ordinance at the same time as Mpls to keep the playing field level. > 5) The role of the city in regulating private businesses, in > this case restaurants and bars. The city already regulates businesses through health and safety regulations. Serving food and serving alchohol brings with it the need for seriously addressing public health. We have standards for ventilation, food handling, NSF equipment, service to minors and intoxicated patrons for good reason. Several groups testified at the hearing that we should only do this statewide, however not one - repeat - NOT ONE of these groups made their concerns known at the state legislature this year and most flat out opposed it. Again, this is a ploy of the tobacco industry as are false claims of air filters and other tchnology solutions. The furor is not really about small businesses, it is about the obscenely wealthy and greedy tobacco giants who want to squeeze a few more years profits out of their addicting product. Check out the Philip Morris website where (I'm sure as a condition of legal settlement) they admit the health effects of both first and second hand smoke on adults and children. dave its the right thing to do we've ignored it too long already. > > -- > Tim Erickson > List Manager > St. Paul Issues Forum > http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/ > Hamline Midway Resident > 651-643-0722 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > St. Paul Links - http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/links.html > > "The St. Paul Issues Forum is a interactive e-mail discussion on > important issues about St. Paul public policy. Participation is free > and open to anyone. We currently have about 350 concerned citizens > and community leaders subscribed to our discussion." > _____________________________________________ > 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/ > _____________________________________________ 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/
