It's clear to me that the major voices on this forum are liberal and pro-smoking ban. It's also clear to me that I'm more likely to "side" with liberals than with folks I see as ultra-conservative. But no one is answering Tom's suggestions, only deriding. He raised a number of options. A letter-writer in this morning's Strib raised some more. But still we get this hostile shouting-down when a real exploration of options would be so much more democratic and (dare I use a Rummy-ism?) helpful. One writer said, "The *fact* remains, Julitta MacFarlane earned her living as a bar & restaurant employee and she died tragically of heart disease at a very early age. It's an on-point, local example of the very same and specific reason that Councilman Thune raised this issue in the City Council."
And then from another contributor: "I repeat, the only facts here are those contributed by Mr. Treumann: Julitta McFarlane earned her living working in bars and restaurants and died tragically young of heart disease which is a proven consequence of exposure to second hand smoke. Unless and until someone contributes any additional facts, those are all we have to apply our common sense to. Insinuating a lot of ideological assumptions in response does nothing but cloud the discussion in lieu of any real contribution." The original post about Julitta's death did not claim Julitta earned her living in bars and restaurants as fact . The obit said that for the past 5 years she had worked with her family's band on about 5 summer concerts, the last being Taste of MN. We don't know how much time she spent in smoky bars, but this is already being transformed into an established cause-and-effect. I don't think the transformation was deliberate. It's just how we read and remember what is most important to us; like the old games where sentences were whispered through a group till they emerged almost unrecognizable. In this case, the *speculation* is becoming the focus, and what Tom says is being pecked at without substantive response to his points. And to Dave Thune I would say this: solely by virtue of your seat on the City Council, you were able to introduce a profoundly disruptive resolution because you yourself decided to quit smoking. Please listen to other views and recognize that your power as a council member is also a responsibility to all of us. Once any government official goes beyond the realm of his/her constituency - say, the ethanol plant - then everyone impacted by his/her actions becomes a constituent. Everyone on the council should be thinking about everyone in the city, not just supporters, not just the bars or restaurants in their own ward, but every St. Paul Citizen. If you all agree that a unilateral ban is best for everyone, so be it. But it sure would be more persuasive if at least some attention were given to other suggestions. And please, can we tone this down? For crying out loud, we live together. Gail O'Hare St. Paul 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 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 20:24:53 -0500 From: "Dave Thune" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [StPaul] Smoking Ban solutions To: "Tom & Elsa Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "stpaul forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" We've been discovered!!! First it is tobacco... next we're going into people's bedrooms to make sure that sex is used only for procreation after 10 p.m. without lights and performed by couples certified by a designated religious persuasion. We're starting in stllwater then jumping immediately to take over wisconsin. Maybe we'll change the constitution while we're at it. dave thune :-) _____________________________________________ 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/
