What I think is that statistics and "facts" can and usually are skewed by groups for their own reasons. Studies are not usually undertaken by non-impacted or non-involved groups. So the methodology used to achieve those results is certainly suspect.
"And you've successfully complicated the smoking ban issue by refusing to simply look at what the relative costs are between potential health hazards (which seem indisputable) and potential harm to businesses (which, interestingly, the business community has failed to substantiate, but which businesses in other communities with bans seem to have suggested is negligible)." Show me where this is "Indisputable" evidence, the EPA report has been shown to be flawed in court. There is always some dispute, that's why the trial lawyers are so powerful today. You discount anything the Chamber may do or have done apparently because you say they haven't "substantiated" anything. Please cite examples of those studies, and who paid for them and the methodology used to employ them. "Under your logic, and history will bear this out, there would never have been a union movement in this country" I don't think that would be a bad thing. I think all public employees should be banned from belonging to unions. It seems like a conflict of interest for public employees to have a union representing them against the people they work for. "What the "free market" certainly does do, however, is to enable the Wal-martization and Disneyfication of the country" Have you been to Disney? The reason they are thriving is customer service. They fall over backwards to make you feel comfortable at their parks. Their service is second to none. Wal-Mart is prospering because they offer a perceived value to people and are building in areas that Target and others did not go into. So why blame Disney for being the ultimate customer service business in the country or Wal-mart for bringing low prices and quality service to people in under served areas? I'd go to Disney every year with my kids if I could. "If this is part of your "wondering when common sense will return to St. Paul" mantra, then please, spare us your wisdom and let us muddle through on our own." Can't take a dissenting view? You only want a euphorian forum where everyone agrees? Too bad. Tom Thompson Como Park Hoping common sense returns to St Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Goldstein/Elysian Fields Quarterly<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Tom & Elsa Thompson<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; stpaul forum<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [StPaul] Smoking Ban solutions What I think is most evident, Mr. Thompson, is that you seem to feel that facts can be interpreted however one would like, so in essence there's no truth out there, just differing opinions. Thus, secondhand smoke studies are flawed or subject to interpretation, just as reams of other evidence showing that the "free market" does almost nothing to deal with health or environmental issues. And free market supporters conveniently neglect the fact that often the studies developed that dispute these legitimate findings are funded by industry or trade groups put together by those huge corporations that love to ignore the consequences of the free market system, whether it's secondhand smoke, incidences of cancer deaths, pollution, toxic waste, automobile defects, etc. And you've successfully complicated the smoking ban issue by refusing to simply look at what the relative costs are between potential health hazards (which seem indisputable) and potential harm to businesses (which, interestingly, the business community has failed to substantiate, but which businesses in other communities with bans seem to have suggested is negligible). That's the funny thing about the free market. Business (and, by the way, I had a successful retail store for 14 years, so I'm hardly anti-business), as an industry, will do almost nothing to regulate itself absent expensive lawsuits or boycotts, yet you decry governmental "interference" for bringing about the regulations that Business refuses to consider itself. Under your logic, and history will bear this out, there would never have been a union movement in this country, we'd never have passed child labor laws, environmental regulation, Social Security, etc., because the so-called "free market" wouldn't have brought these things about. What the "free market" certainly does do, however, is to enable the Wal-martization and Disneyfication of the country, such that private companies become more powerful than many nations and able to destroy competition and thwart dissent. If this is part of your "wondering when common sense will return to St. Paul" mantra, then please, spare us your wisdom and let us muddle through on our own. Tom Goldstein Mac-Groveland ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom & Elsa Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: "stpaul forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 8:15 PM Subject: [StPaul] Smoking Ban solutions I guess the difference here comes down to this; there are those on this list who believe that Government (whether it's law makers or the courts) can best determine what citizens and businesses can do. And there are those of us who believe that the free market will determine by folks spending or not spending at particular businesses. I will first say that I have 2 small children and don't like to eat in a smoky restaurant. That is not the deciding factor whether I go there though. The taste, quality of food and service are more important to me. I will always choose to sit in a non-smoking section of a restaurant, when given the opportunity. However, I believe that the choice should be there for businesses to determine if they want two sections. If customers come back then the customers want that too. If they didn't want that they would go elsewhere or put up there own money and open a non-smoking restaurant. Bars are a different story. I don't believe bars should be included in any ban. People have a choice to indulge in a more destructive substance (alcohol) or not. They have a choice to go to bars. If you want a non-smoking bar, open one up and see if it can support itself. MY SOLUTIONS WITHOUT A COMPLETE BAN: Try to get about 50% of current licensed restaurants to agree to a voluntary no smoking policy. All new permits for licensed restaurants would require that they choose either smoking or non-smoking for a policy. Require high permit fees up front for the smoking permits. Limit the number of smoking permits given out to the percentage of the population that smokes . Use a lottery system for these smoking permits if demand outweighs permit ability (which I believe it would). This way we can learn. Do business that opt for non-smoking and those that opt for smoking have any impact on the businesses customer base or bottom line? Bars are a different story. I would not put any ban on bars. No one has to go to a bar. No one is excluded or included. If non-smoking bars would be viable than get investors to start them up and have bands come in and play there. Prove to people that non-smoking bars can be viable. Make a difference by using your checkbook and supporting businesses that support your opinion. If there aren't any then start one, if you can't then it may not be a viable business entity. I know that I will vote against anyone who supports a complete smoking ban in St Paul or Ramsey County. It is the next thing they are trying to take away. I don't know what will be next, but if this passes another item will be up for government banning shortly afterwards. Let's make government responsive to the people but allowing choices in the marketplace, not sanctioning one lifestyle over another. I will also use my ability to control where I spend my money by shopping outside of ban areas. I would rather drive to Hudson and spend my money in Wisconsin than support a restrictive government mentality. I hope the Chamber of Commerce, Tavern League, restaurant industry and others start listening. It is not a forgone conclusion that a ban has to occur. The idea that it is a forgone conclusion is being perpetuated by the groups that want the ban. There are many out there like me who say, Not Here, Not Now! Let's look at alternatives to complete bans, like I have given above. Tom Thompson Como Park Wondering when common sense will return to St Paul _____________________________________________ 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/
