----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 12:00 PM Subject: Stpaul Digest, Vol 6, Issue 23 Send Stpaul mailing list submissions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Stpaul digest..." ------------------------------------------------- Please - Take the St. Paul Job Shadow Survey Just 15 Questions: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=70658501784 ------------------------------------------------- Today's Topics: 1. Rybak and Kelly oppose smoking ban unless modifications are made (Andy Driscoll) 2. Swift Petition Gathering (Eva Young) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:54:28 -0500 From: Andy Driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [StPaul] Rybak and Kelly oppose smoking ban unless modifications are made To: "St. Paul Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" >> From the Strib: > > The mayor said that he doesn't favor the proposal as it stands now because > of the effect it could have on small bars and businesses and that he > believes the language prohibiting smoking in "public places" and "places of > work" is too vague. > > "Does that mean that police go in and stop people from smoking at outdoor > construction sites or home offices?" Rybak asked. "Eventually we can have > this if we can find a way to have a coordinated approach and make every > attempt we can to put as little impact as we can on fragile small businesses > who operate on a thin margin, and find strategies to avoid problems in > neighborhoods caused by having people in residential areas standing outside > bars and restaurants smoking until 2 a.m." > > http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4825751.html Vague, my eye. The simpler the ban, the less "vague" it is. I find it fascinating - nauseating - that the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul are more willing to risk the health and safety of their constituents than to believe the free-wheeling lies perpetrated by the tobacco companies and union leaders to maintain the status quo. Tobacco, bar owners and union officials - all of whom smoke their brains out day and night. These are the villains and they've descended on the Council chambers of every city considering a smoking ban, hammering away at you elected officials till you can't stand it anymore. How ironic that the usual shill sheet for the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce spread their heaviest effort yet on an editorial this morning calling for both cities to drop all compromises and get on with the businesses of protecting the people's health. A courageous stance for which they should be congratulated. Phony data, phony reason to oppose a ban. It might be convincing, even to a few of us rabid supporters if the nation's experience weren't so contradictory to the lobbyists haunting your chambers. There are NO financial downsides for businesses forced to eliminate smoking from their premises, either based on worker safety or customer health. None. Anywhere - New York, Florida, California, among other states and the cities of Boston and Cambridge among many others as well. The small-margin businesses are small-margin because of their management, not because smoking is keeping them afloat. If smoking outside of bars is an issue, ban smoking outside the bars; stop risking the health of everyone else just to keep some nebulous neighborhood noise to a minimum, noise that takes place at 1 or 2 AM in any event, after much more alcohol consumed by smokers and after much more smoking had damaged that many more humans. Once again: There is NO economic loss for any industry except liquor- and cigarette-pushers, but this state forks over $3 billion smoking-related health-care costs every damned year - right out of your taxpayers' pockets - and the real economic loss is to everyone *but* big tobacco, the bar/restaurant industry and union leadership - and maybe the politicians trying to protect a small minority from their mandatory job of protecting the public health. Something is terribly wrong when 80% of one's constituents support such a health measure as smoking cessation in public places and workspaces. and the elected officials cave to less than 20% of the outspoken special interests. This is enough to unelect whoever votes against this important measure. Period. No other option should be considered. It is the mark of cowardice in the face of the wrong kinds of pressure, pressure that the general public simply cannot place on you that you would allow this opportunity to slip through your fingers. This all big tobacco and some union leadership pushing bars and restaurants into paranoiac and unsubstantiated fear for their lives and personal comfort, nothing less, nothing more. Shame on all of you opposing these bans. You think a lawsuit is possible from the industries? Wait till you see the one coming from victims who can now claim you had a chance to protect them and blew it. Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 ------ ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:05:34 -0500 From: Eva Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [StPaul] Swift Petition Gathering To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed A while back Mr Swift wrote: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01845.html I also stopped by councilperson Thune's office to make it official that I had taken the rest of this week and next off from work (using my vacation) to coordinate a group collecting signatures opposing the adoption of his resolution. He wasn't in, perhaps he was enjoying the after rally festivities. Although it appears that he cannot be compelled to do so, I can not conceive why he would not put this issue on the public discussion agenda so that his constituents (and those of the other members) may have their say. After all, if his unilateral decision to speak for us all on this subject is not the dishonest act of hypocrisy it appears on it's face, the vast majority of St. Paul residents are in complete agreement with him and my friends and I should not be able to rally anyone&right? EY: I'm curious about how many signatures were collected. We've never had a report on the results of this one. This was regarding CM Thune's resolution to put St Paul on record opposing the Bachmann proposal to scroll anti-gay graffitti on the Minnesota Constitution. Eva Young Near North Minneapolis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog is up: http://lloydletta.blogspot.com Saying creationism deserves equal time with the theory of evolution in the classroom is like saying I deserve equal time with Pavarotti at the Sydney Opera House. ------------------------------ _____________________________________________ 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/ _____________________________________________ For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract End of Stpaul Digest, Vol 6, Issue 23 ************************************* _____________________________________________ 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/
