Mr. Thompson once again gets his facts entirely wrong. I do not know if this is due to lack of knowledge, (which anyone should know if have been following this discussion, as Mr. Thompson has), or an attempt to distort the facts to fit his theory.
He writes, "Some write that Lantry compromised by putting in the smoking rooms. And proponents of the smoking ban say that this was the only compromise they were willing to make, and are now rescinding it, because some other communities passed a different version of a ban." If Mr. Thompson read the newspapers or even followed posts on this board he would know that supporters of the ban did not "rescind" the smoking room proposal, but IT WAS VETOED BY MAYOR KELLY! Mayor Kelly killed it, the supporters did not "resind it". Then Mr. Thompson writes, "Opponents of the ban want bars excluded with 50% or less food. The proponents of the ban won't even consider this to be voted on, so it had to be pulled." Again Mr. Thompson destorts the facts. Yes, supporters of a smoking ban oppose excluding bars whose sales of liquor exceed 50% for a number of good reasons Jeanne Weigem set forth earlier; do we protect only some workers, it creates an unequal playing field with other Cities, which Mayor Kelly said he wanted to avoid and will create an unequal playing field in Saint Paul between bars and resturants. But let's be clear here, Thompson wrote "proponents of the ban won't even consider this to be voted on". This is absolutely false; the Mayor, Dan Bostrom and bar owners knew this proposal would fail in the City Council on a 4 to 3 vote, so Bostrom withdrew his porposal. The supporters of a ban would have just voted it down, but to write ban supporters "won't even consider this to be voted on" is a slander, as it makes it appear they do not believe in the Democratic process. I think the one thing that we should do here, and in all discussions on this board, is to be honest with the facts. It does not serve any discussion when one side attempts to twist the facts to fit their version of the truth. Dan Dobson Summit Hill --- Tom & Elsa Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess it depends on what side of the fence you > stand, whether you believe the smoking ban has > had compromise. > > Some write that Lantry compromised by putting in the > smoking rooms. And proponents of the smoking > ban say that this was the only compromise they were > willing to make, and are now rescinding it, because > some other communities passed a different version of > a ban. > > Opponents of the ban want bars excluded with 50% or > less food. The proponents of the ban won't > even consider this to be voted on, so it had to be > pulled. > > Seems to me only the opponents of the ban are > talking compromise. Since any talk of ANY ban is a > compromise > to the opponents. So to me the only ones not > willing to compromise and taking the low ground > are the proponents. The proponents are taking an > all or nothing stand. This may win, or it may > lose. The next elections are going to be fun to say > the least. > > So any talk of the opponents of the ban being > unreasonable to me is totally partisan. The > opponents > are the ones making the biggest compromises by even > talking about supporting/allowing some sort of a > ban. > > Both sides need to take a step back and look at what > is best for St Paul. > > This is not a public health issue as some want to > say. It's an issue about some people wanting to > control the behavior of others. That may not be a > bad thing, but why ban smoking in bars and > restaurants? Why not ban tobacco products all > together. If this was a public health issue, it > wouldn't be about smoke free bars and restaurants, > it would be about a smoke free America. Even OSHA > has said that the levels of carcinogens in second > hand smoke in bars/restaurants is not above accepted > levels. Where is the public health issue? It's not > a public health issue, it's about controlling > people's behavior. Until opponents of the ban start > fighting back with the fact that this is not about > public health, but behavior control, the opponents > are going to continue to lose. > > This is the same as the gun control crowd. They > said at first they just wanted to control certain > types of guns. > Then it became ammunition, then it became all guns. > This is going down the same road. Let's just start > at the end game. Either the proponents start going > to go after making tobacco/nicotine products > illegal, or > let it alone altogether. > > Tom Thompson > Como Park > > > > > _____________________________________________ > 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/
