What I find amazing is that, for everyone but the most advocating posters in favor of a smoking ban, no evidence is enough to enact one. Now comes our moderator, who, if nothing else, expresses supreme na�vet� in his proposition that, especially because he "knows many smart people not connected to tobacco" opposing the ban, somehow this is adequate evidence to suggest the tobacco industry isn't behind the opposition at least as much as the bar owners.
No doubt there will be those for whom no amount of history or evidence to the contrary will shake them of their belief that a smoking ban will put them out of business. But there's reason to believe their opposition is hyped more by tobacco companies organizing their opposition - whether paying them for it or not. Then come the truly deceptive - the politicos who pretend to be serving the public interest by avoiding "a mish-mash of ordinances" when the mish-mash could have been avoided by simply signing the St. Paul ordinance which followed precisely the Minneapolis model and was just slightly lighter than Bloomington. They claim to care for the little guy - the small businesses who claim disaster will follow smoking bans. Here's one for you: I don't care. I don't care whether or not it means one or two businesses closing - if it means stalling a major health measure top protect the public. No single economic sacrifice should ever stop a public interest initiative from going into effect. Of course, these sorts of sacrifices have been suffered by entire industries when their operations or effects have been replaced by whole industries better suited to serve the health or safety of the larger community. It's been said before, but not been emphasized enough as the debate rages over these issues: the primary reason for opposition to smoking bans is not merely because customers *want* to smoke, it's because their smoking makes them drink more and their drinking spawns heavier smoking - a boon to both Big Tobacco and the bars. Alcohol profits - and cigarette sales - soar under such conditions, and it's a reduction in those windfalls that the boys in Virginia and behind the bar want you to keep puffing away. As always, health issues mean nothing when so much money is at stake. This business that bar-owners have sunk everything they own into owning their watering holes is myth. Many may have done so early on, but that business is so profitable, they make their nut very quickly and the rest is gravy. Those who are still struggling are not struggling because times are tough and smoking is all that's keeping them afloat. These are people who cannot manage their businesses well enough to make the money others make, and it is NOT up to the public sector to bail them out of their bad times. Smoking keeps no one in business. And the record is replete: smoking bans put none them out of business. Only lousy business practices can do that. And don't think the opposing politicians don't know this. They're not na�ve. They're simply under tremendous pressure - from tobacco lobbyists, booze lobbyists like former State Rep. Jim Farrell (whose disingenuous arguments on public radio should have outraged us all for their insulting nature) and union leaders claiming they speak for their members when they oppose the bans - but, instead should be protecting their members whether internal polls suggest otherwise or not. Most of those employees who are prepared to accept smoking and prepared to support their bosses' opposition to bans simply to keep their jobs. Some are courageous enough to speak up, but most will not, at least not within earshot of their employers. Charlie Swope's New York experience and my own in Boston a few months ago - plus thousands of others' - are first-person testaments to the utter lack of any showing that bars in those cities have suffered whatsoever. All of them have done as well and usually *better* than they had because of the increase in numbers of customers, not just numbers of drinks by the same smoking customers day in and day out. And they've dodged lawsuits for not fixing the air for their employees - the ones with no choice in choosing their air. Any opposition to what is so much more obvious than most other health measures we've faced is absolutely unacceptable. Cities, counties and states have been irresponsibly caving in to these pressures from the smallest minority of business owners and residents in all jurisdictions at the peril of the massive majority, primarily because they can hang around city halls and courthouses laying hands on legislators and pushing hard and threatening and cajoling while the public at-large is powerless to protest sufficiently to counter that pressure. Tim and others afraid to take a strong position on something other than neutrality need to get a grip on the reality of policymaking in our system and the fact that money and the ability to be ever-present in the face of policymakers is dictating far too much public policy. The opposition should be ashamed of themselves for neglecting the hearts and lungs of their children and ignoring the workers of irresponsible business owners - including the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce. Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 ------ ate: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:15:29 -0500 From: Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thanks to Charlie, for the report from New York. I hope that he will forgive me, for taking advantage of one of his comments, to make a broader point. I'm not so much responding to Charlie, as using his comment as an example of something that I hear quite frequently - from lots of people (at least in this forum). >I can only conclude that the bar owners here are >either ignorant or in the pay of the tobacco >companies; or perhaps both. I guess I don't understand why WE (so many of us) don't allow for the fact, that the other side MIGHT just be mistaken. MIGHT just be clinging to a false set of assumptions based upon a world view that they have lived with for 40, 50, 60, or more years. Change is hard and our city and nation are full of examples of groups and individuals who clung to outdated views, long after they were popularly rejected (sometimes with passion and great political effort). As frustrating as this is, it shouldn't be surprising. I sincerely don't understand, why WE continually reduce our opinion of the "political opposition" to either ignorant, lying, or paid off. Is it really so hard to accept that sincere, well intentioned individuals might - "not get it." That they might, just be sincerely "wrong." Some of my best friends, family members, and political allies have at times taken positions that bewilder me. At times, I do think that they are just "stupid." But, their track record proves otherwise and history demonstrates well intentioned individuals are very often wrong. It even happened to me once, back in 1992. :-) As Charlie indicated, the bartenders in New York that he spoke to were sincerely surprised that the smoking ban didn't affect business. Were they also "ignorant" or "In the pay" prior to their conversion. Or, were they just good people working under an outdated (or differing) set of assumptions. I know very SMART people with absolutely no connections to the tobacco industry, that oppose this ban. If I had my life savings or even a significant portion of assets tied up in a restaurant or bar in which a significant number of my customers smoked - I'd be scared about the ban (regardless of how many studies you show me). Because, even if a bar or restaurant owner accepts the fact that most businesses will do fine under a ban - they must live with the fear that THEY could be the exception. NOW - none of this is any reason to stop the ban. BUT, in my opinion, resistance to this ban is typical of any kind of political change and shouldn't be surprising. We simply have to work with it, plod along, and resist the urge to assume that everyone who disagrees with us (or even scientific evidence) is under some evil influence. Maybe - Just Maybe, they are human. Good people who "just don't get it." But, then again - maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it and they ARE all getting secret checks in the mail from billionaire tobacco lobbyists. :-) Just my humble opinion for the day, Tim Erickson citizen in Ward 4 Hamline Midway [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------ End of Forwarded Message _____________________________________________ 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/
