Poor Tim. You're probably not surprised that the first (and probably next 20)
responses to your idea of working up to a total ban were a resounding NO. The ban
folks have been so unyielding that they can't back down. What has the experience been
in Rochester and Duluth? Their bans aren't total, one has been tweaked, but how
really are they doing? I think the terrible mistake that's been made here was that
the movement took off at such speed there was no time to look at options. The
smoking room option wasn't examined (in truth, they do work in some places), tax
incentives to install high-tech ventilation systems were an option, hours of service
or percentages of food business were an option - combinations of these and many others
could have been studied. But no, it was all or nothing. Ahem - "You're either with
us or against us." Where have we heard that before?
Gail O'Hare
St. Paul
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:08:54 -0500
From: Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [StPaul] Smoking Ban Compromise?
To: "St. Paul Issues Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
I try not to get too opinionated in the forum on a daily basis, but
from time to time, I need to let something off my chest. Here it
is.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have to say, that I'm a bit concerned about the attitude (at least
what I perceive) in the Anti-Smoking movement, that suggest that this
is an all or nothing proposal. I fear, that in St. Paul and across
the nation, we are loosing our ability and willingness to seek
compromise.
It seems to me, that there is a very real opportunity to reach an
amicable compromise, which would ban smoking in most establishments
immediately and in all establishments within a couple of years.
I've heard that opponents of the ban have been willing to discuss a
total ban, if phased in over a course of several years - but, that
opponents are unwilling to compromise.
Since when, has compromise become a bad word?
While, I agree that a total ban is the ultimate goal. I would be
willing to wait several years for the full ban to take effect, if the
ultimate outcome was that we could start now AND a general consensus
could be reached so that portions of our community did not feel as if
this issue was being pushed down their throat.
I have lived with smoking all of my life, I am eager to see it
disappear. However, I also understand that many of my neighbors feel
differently - and, I for one, would be willing grant them time to
adjust.
As it is, we risk the possibility of doing nothing - because we are
unwilling to compromise.
Now, I'm not directly involved in this issue and have not been privy
to negotiations. I'm sure, I'll be told that the efforts at reaching
a compromise are all a diversion to prevent a smoking ban. However,
it seems clear to me, that the smoking ban train has left the station
and cannot be stopped. Smoking will eventually be banned in all St.
Paul restaurants and bars, either through local or state-wide
legislation.
I don't understand, what appears to me, to be a complete
unwillingness to compromise on the timetable.
I would rather get a portion of the ban right now - than wait for 1-2
years, to get the whole thing at once, while increasing the hostility
and polarization of St. Paul politics in the meantime.
Just my humble opinion.........
:-)
Best wishes,
Tim Erickson
Hamline Midway
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:43:27 -0500
From: "Dennis Tester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [StPaul] Smoking Ban Compromise?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Ah, the 'ol boiling frog trick, eh? Sounds like a plan. After all, it's worked for
everything else the left has tried.
Dennis Tester
Mac-Groveland
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:51:18 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [StPaul] Smoking Ban Compromise?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Erickson), [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("St. Paul
Issues Forum")
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I thought that the anti-smoking folks offered up a compromise, which was a smoking
room. As I recall that was vetoed and blasted as being unhealthy (ridiculed wouldn't
be too strong of a word). Hmm, let's see, one offers up the only compromise so far
and that proposal is ridiculed, the other side offers up absolutely nothing and the
correct response is to criticize the only side that has offered any proposal.
Ramsey County may well be offering up a proposal that bans smoking in establishments
that sells only or mostly food, but wait until you hear the screaming on that one from
the bar industry. Eagle Street Grill mostly food so smoking is banned, half a block
away Vine Park mostly booze so smoking is ok'd. Mancinni's banned mostly food - 620
Club a block away mostly booze smokes OK. They will be at the court house with
torches when that one comes up.
I love the sweat and innocent people that believe that when it comes to any issue
there is a happy medium waiting to be uncovered.
Bar owners believe that when you drink you smoke and when you smoke you drink and if
you have to get your butt off of the barstool to have a smoke you might discover that
you have had enough and keep on walking. That is a legitimate fear. Why would they
ever offer or accept a compromise? It doesn't matter if other states have been
successful in going smoke free. They are afraid and they will fight it. Beyond that
they are never going to be OK with the guy down the block being able to do something
they can't do. So, what would be the happy compromise?
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 12:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: M Charles Swope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [StPaul] Smoking Ban Compromise?
To: Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "St. Paul Issues Forum"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"...I'm a bit concerned about the attitude (at least
what I perceive) in the Anti-Smoking movement, that
suggest that this is an all or nothing proposal."
Why blame the Anti-smoking movement for a failure to
compromise? After all, it was Mayor Kelly's guy on the
Council, Dan Bostrom, who withdrew his proposal for a
ban that would exempt bars doing most of their
business in liquor sales. That compromise was taken
off the table by the pro-smoking people.
On a related matter, I'm surprised we haven't heard
anything about the harm that may occur to places like
W.A. Frost, The Glockenspiel and other places that
serve food but also do a substantial bar business.
Exempting bars that do little or no food business may
well draw substantial customers from these
establishments (I don't know that it will but it's
just as likely as the dive bars losing business
without an exemption). There's no reason to expect
that the exemption will have no effect other than to
allow the dives to keep from losing business.
Charlie Swope
Ward 1
------------------------------
_____________________________________________
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/
_____________________________________________
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
End of Stpaul Digest, Vol 9, Issue 4
************************************
_____________________________________________
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/
