In response to Tim's question, why not just compromise. After all, its just a few years before this problem is solved? A few pretty good reasons.
1)This is, after all, a public health issue. From a public health perspective it is not really possible to justify protecting some workers and failing to provide protections to those most heavily exposed and most vulnerable. Perhaps politicians can do that in the name of getting things done but public health professionals can not easily sacrifice those least able to protect themselves. 2) Research that has now been replicated verifies that about hospital admissions for heart attacks go down, about 50%, when a smoking ban in bars and restaurants is in place. The same is not true when there is mere separation or separate smoking areas. The folks who are having these heart attacks may be unaware that they were vulnerable/at risk. The health care cost, to say absoluletly nothing about the human cost, is in the vicinity of $125,000 per heart attach admission. In Saint Paul alone this would translate into millions of dollars in health care savings, something most businesses would no doubt appreciate. 3) Having some facilities smoke free and some smoking permitted, as they learned in Minneapolis when they tried to work out such a compromise, has unfortunate and strange impacts among businesses. Two similar businesses on opposite sides of the street would have different rules. For businesses which wished to have smoking, there would be a strong incentive to push drinks to keep their alcohol sales high. We have even seen situations where drinks were sold for, say, $25 and there was a complimentary meal. This pushes the percent of revenue from alcohol artifically high, quite obviously. Quite likely Billies would have a different set of rules from BonFire, right across the street. 4) And, in what other public health issues where the actual risk is death have we implemented partial measures? Some people get clean water? Some people have lead in the paint? Some people have the food without the mouse dropping? Nope. When it is PUBLIC health we protect the public equally. When we don't, I can assure you that it is the most vulnerable with the least ability to protect themselves who get all the bad stuff. 5) I have been working on this issue since I was a red head. I know from vast experience when the other side wants to compromise several things happen. If we compromise that is the starting point for the next demand. There absolutely will be an effort by these same people to undermine whatever we do at the state legislature, as one of their lobbyist said, "You give me not option but to pre-empt you at the state."; they do not speak with a unifed voice. Some owners want no restrictions now or ever (see the Senkler article in Avenues), some do believe the train is out of the station and they need to adjust. 6) The appearance of honest negotiations by 'the other side' could not have been further from honest or negotiations. It was a blatant effort at trickery and slight of hand. "So and so has agreed to this. Now all we need is you." And 'so and so' had agreed to nothing. It was a pathetic attempt at divide and conquer. And their bitter name calling, vindictive rhetoric, verbal abuse and threats didn't help much either. Jeanne Weigum been there and done that in Merriam Park -- Jeanne Weigum 651-646-3005 fax 651-646-0142 _____________________________________________ 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/
