'In fact, even if, as some bar owners and union leaders claim, 75% or so of bar employees don't want the ban, too bad. I don't believe it, but it doesn't make any difference. "
Hmmm. There's a word for this type of thinking. Dennis Tester Mac-Groveland ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Driscoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "St. Paul Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 1:29 AM Subject: Re: [StPaul] Smoking Ban Update > on 8/26/04 11:33 PM, List Manager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: > > Here is my understanding of where the ban is at: > > > > Its my understanding, that the smoking ban could be acted upon as > > soon as next week. However, according to today's paper, the ban as it > > currently stands is only likely to gather 4 votes. Which is not > > enough to override a veto by Mayor Kelly. It appears that Mayor Kelly > > will veto the ban as it is currently worded. > > > > The compromise ban, that allowed smoking is some establishments was > > pulled off the table by Dan Bostrom, who apparently didn't like an > > amendment that had been attached to it. > > > > Do I have this right? > > Sort of. > > Dan may not have liked the amendment which changed the percentage of liquor > sales required for exemption from 50% to some significantly higher number - > like 70% - meaning that it would have to be very much a liquor-serving bar > and very little food to be let off the hook. Fifty percent would have > exempted far too many. But no percentage is adequate for the public health. > > The real reason Dan pulled his bill is that his version never secured a > required majority of four votes to pass. He never lobbied any one of his > colleagues to negotiate his provisions to secure a compromise one of the > other four could live with, something any reasonable legislator knows he or > she must do to gain the necessary votes for passage. So they never > materialized. This was Kelly's bill, not Bostrom's, anyway. Bostrom almost > never proposes legislation. > > Dan was also sick as a dog Wednesday, ashen and woozy. We hope it is merely > a flu. > > The issue of the Thune bill is that it exempts no bar or restaurant, and, > because Randy Kelly disingenuously vetoed a bill that actually represented > the regional uniformity he keeps claiming he wants (the smoking rooms were > easily extracted without vetoing - or allowing an override, then amending > the rooms out), Thune's measure will get the four votes to pass, but not > five to override. > > Kelly has claimed all along that he was opposed to Thune's bill because he > didn't want St. Paul isolated from the rest of the region in slapping a > smoking ban on bars and restaurants only in his city, especially with the > allowance for smoking rooms. What makes that a disingenuous and manipulative > posture is his continued dancing around the very conditions now presented to > him by the total bans in Bloomington and Minneapolis (and soon, all of > Hennepin County). > > To prevent St. Paul from joining those two largest cities in the state as > the core of a regional solution is unforgivable, not only because he lied > about his reasons for a veto and his assertions that regional solutions were > necessary not to put St. Paul bar owners and restaurateurs at a > disadvantage, but because he'd be getting with his insistence on exemptions > the very mish-mash of ordinances and laws he had claimed would be bad > policy. He was right, by the way; he simply vetoed (voted) directly opposite > of his lip service. > > The incredible stubbornness of the rude and boisterous bar owners who > heckled Dave Thune and his colleagues at the public hearing Wednesday > evening is indicative of just one thing: their smoke-filled rooms serve as a > boost to alcohol sales; smoking would not be the deciding factor for their > customers to continue patronizing their joints. Ninety-nine percent of them > patronize a bar because for the company they keep and the food they eat, not > just whether smoking is allowed. > > No decent drinker or smoker can deny that a drink makes a smoker want to > light up and that the smoking makes them want another drink. And so it goes: > have a drink, light up, order another drink, light up again, and so on. It's > a hand-in-glove proposition that by their addictions they will be drunker > and sicker for their evening in a barroom - both dangerous states of mind > and judgment when the evening ends. > > But bar owners don't really care that this behavior is a threat not only to > the health of their workers and their customers, but to the public at-large > as well, because, of course, the more sodden the customer, the more > dangerous he or she is heading home behind the wheel. No. The profits from > alcohol sales are too huge, and the loss of smoking that spawns far higher > per capita consumption of alcohol means that those profits would have to be > replaced with additional customers. Besides, bar owners don't believe new > customers will actually start coming in for smoke-free socializing. > > If any governmental unit, including St. Paul, Ramsey County and Dakota > County, is thoughtless enough to pass bans with exceptions based on > unenforceable percentages of alcohol vs. food sales, they're all inviting > unnecessary lawsuits by the dozens. The line between the two can be > altogether too fine - and some bar is going to fall under the smoking ban > when they think they shouldn't and/or when their competition across the > street is considered exempt, perhaps by just a few dollars in liquor sales. > > It's unfair to all of them to create an exemption for any of them, and the > costs of enforcement as well as the costs in health care, insurance rates > and potential lawsuits inherent with selective exemptions would be a fiscal > disaster lying in wait. With exemptions, somebody gets screwed. Without > exemptions, some will think they're screwed, but they won't be because the > law will be applied uniformly and no one can cry "foul." > > St. Paul citizens should tell Randy Kelly, Councilmembers Debbie Montgomery, > Pat Harris and Dan Bostrom and Ramsey County Commissioners Rafael Ortega, > Victoria Reinhardt and Jan Wiessner that they are toying with such disaster > if they pass the Olmsted County (Rochester) model ordinance, especially when > Minneapolis and Bloomington and all of Hennepin County will be the places > St. Paul/Ramsey County residents go for safer and more comfortable > smoke-free dining, drinking and socializing. > > All of this is over and above the basic reason for the smoking ban: worker > safety and public health. It is the responsibility of government to protect > both, libertarian smokers and bar owners notwithstanding. In fact, even if, > as some bar owners and union leaders claim, 75% or so of bar employees don't > want the ban, too bad. I don't believe it, but it doesn't make any > difference. Sometimes we must be protected from our own inclinations to > self-destruct. Lord knows that here, in the heart of the recovery belt, most > of us have learned that our own judgment for self-preservations is out of > whack under the influence of these drugs - nicotine and alcohol. > > Call these people and tell them what their duty to their people is really > about. > > Andy Driscoll > Crocus Hill/Ward 2 > ------ > > > _____________________________________________ > 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/ _____________________________________________ 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/
