Dear Mayor Kelly; While I couldn't agree more on the "smoking room" folly, I find any suggestion that economic dislocation or any other economic fear to be disingenuously employed to justify your veto. Calling this a "smoking room" proposal diverts the discussion from addressing the core health issue at the heart of the legislation. Smoking rooms are an option in this ordinance, not a requirement. There should be no smoking of any kind, as I see it. The availability of smoking rooms is no deterrent to passing this bill.
The record of smoking bans everywhere in the country is replete with improved revenue streams and reductions in smoking activity generally. I returned recently from Boston where 200-year-old pubs are flourishing under a very strict smoking ban - and bar owners and employees are delighted with the resulting clean air and improved business climate - including customers otherwise kept away from previously smoke-filled facilities. How any responsible elected official can veto or vote against this critical legislation is beyond me, and I guarantee one thing: votes and vetoes so insensitive to the core issues of worker and family health in public accommodation will be remembered. This is not an anti-business proposal - it is pro-business - whether business gets it or not. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul on 7/8/04 1:36 PM, Randy Kelly wrote: > Dear Mr. Driscoll: > > Thank you for contacting me regarding proposals to regulate smoking in > bars and restaurants in Saint Paul. > > The City Council, by a 4-3 vote, has forwarded to me a proposed > ordinance that would prohibit smoking except in designated "smoking > rooms." While I recognize the harmful effects of second-hand smoke and > believe that significant regulation of smoking in bars and restaurants > is inevitable, the "smoking room" proposal is not well thought out. It > is far more expensive and problematic to implement than its supporters > have indicated and will only worsen the health of people who are > addicted to nicotine. Accordingly, I have vetoed the "smoking room" > proposal. > > I have taken the lead to promote a more thoughtful, regional approach > to this issue that will both maximize the public health benefits and > minimize any economic dislocation that comes when one city tries to > regulate commerce on its own. Attached is a letter I sent the City > Council outlining my approach. > > Again, I appreciate your taking the time to contact me on this > important issue. > > Randy Kelly > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/06/04 05:47PM >>> > To the Honorable Randy Kelly, > > > > I am writing to express my deep disappointment that you vetoed the > ordinance that would have made St. Paul restaurants and bars > smoke-free. > > Secondhand smoke contains nearly 4,000 chemicals, 69 of which are known > to > cause cancer. Everyone has the right to breathe safe, clean, > smoke-free air and I am disappointed that you do not support the > proposal that protects that right. > > I don't see any reason why my lungs should suffer while you pass > the buck and claim to support a "regional" solution. Vetoing this > ordinance is a setback to regional progress and lowers the > incentive for other communities to follow suit. St. Paul should > be a leader in promoting health. Cities like New York, Boston, > Madison and Duluth are already going smoke-free. Please > reconsider your position and be a leader rather than an opponent > of this important health measure. I and the majority of people in > St. Paul want our community to become smoke-free now! > > I look forward to your response. > > > Sincerely, > > Andy Driscoll > 835 Linwood Ave. > St. Paul, MN 55105 > _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ 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/
