Gail wrote:
Andy Driscoll has presented heartfelt and sincere arguments against the opponents of a total smoking ban. I have interjected some responses to his comments - TYPED IN CAPS and marked with asterisks ***** in the hope of responding in a way that readers can follow. It would be enormously helpful if font or color changes could facilitate this kind of dialog. I'm sorry to have to inflict such an awkward style on readers and beg you not to see these comments as screaming or derogatory.
FIRST THE OPPOSITION IS PAINTED AS PURELY GREEDY AND SELF-SERVING, WHILE THE MODERATE VOICES ARE BELITTLED AS DUPES:
------------------------------
>> 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. ********AND HOW IS YOUR EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE MORE ADEQUATE? *****
IN CONTRAST, BAN PROPONENTS ARE PAINTED AS PURELY SELFLESS:
>>>>>>>> and Here's one for you: I don't care.*************ANDY DOESN'T CARE. THIS IS EASY TO SAY WHEN IT'S SOMEONE ELSE'S LIVELIHOOD **** 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 Of course, these sorts of sacrifices have been suffered by entire industries when their operations or effects have been replaced by whole industries better suited to serve the health or safety of the larger community. ************EXAMPLES? WHAT HEALTHIER INDUSTRIES HAVE REPLACED UNHEALTHY ONES? ARE THERE INSTRUCTIVE ANALOGIES THAT COULD HELP AMELIORATE PEOPLE'S DIFFERENCES?
It's been said before **********(BY ANDY)*******************, 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. ***************EVIDENCE? STATISTICALLY SOUND STUDIES?*****************
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.***********SUPPOSITION WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATION. ANY DATA AT ALL ON SOARING PROFITS TIED TO CIGARETTES? AND DOESN'T THIS "REDUCTION IN WINDFALLS" CONFLICT WITH THE CONTENTION THAT BARS ARE NOT HURT WHEN THEY BAN SMOKING?**********
These are people who cannot manage their businesses well enough **************(CONTINUATION OF THEME NEVER SUPPORTED BUT REPEATED IN THE TRADITION OF "A LIE TOLD OFTEN ENOUGH WILL BE BELIEVED") ***************** " to make the money others make, and it is NOT up to the public sector ***********"PUBLIC SECTOR" MEANING GOVERNMENT? ******** to bail them out of their bad times *****BAD TIMES THAT DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL GOVERNMENT CAUSED THEM ********. 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.***********SO IF GOVERNMENT DECIDES TO ELIMINATE A KEY SECTOR OF THEIR MARKET, THEN THE BUSINESSES ARE GUILTY OF BAD BUSINESS PRACTICES? IF GOVERNMENT BUILT A FREEWAY THROUGH THE RONDO NEIGHBORHOOD AND CAUSED PREVIOUSLY SUCCESSFUL GROCERY STORES , RESTAURANTS, BARBER SHOPS etc. TO FAIL, THEY SHOULD HAVE BLAMED THEIR OWN LOUSY BUSINESS PRACTICES?*************
>>>>Charlie Swope's New York experience and my own in Boston a few months ago -
plus thousands of others' ********CAN THESE THOUSANDS BE IDENTIFIED?HOW IS THIS ASSERTION MORE "ADEQUATE" EVIDENCE THAN TIM'S?***********- are first-person testaments to the utter lack of
any showing that bars in those cities have suffered whatsoever. ******THIS IS CALLED ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE AND HAS NO VALIDITY. POSSIBLY THE SERVERS AND BAR OWNERS QUESTIONED GAVE THE ANSWERS YOU CLEARLY WANTED TO HEAR. POSSIBLY THEY HOPED FOR TIPS OR MORE BUSINESS*******
All of them*********HOW MANY IS "ALL" AND WHAT WAS THE METHODOLOGY OF YOUR SURVEY?********
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. ****SO WHY IS THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY VILLAINOUSLY OPPOSING SMOKING BANS?****
And they've dodged lawsuits for not fixing the
air for their employees - the ones with no choice in choosing their air. ******HOW ARE THE DODGED LAWSUITS IDENTIFIED AND ENUMERATED? WHAT COMMUNITIES AND BARS HAVE BEEN BESET WITH LAWSUITS BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO BAN SMOKING? ARE THESE THE LAWSUITS OUR PRESIDENT IS WARNING US ABOUT - THE ONES TRIAL LAWYERS BRING TO DESTROY THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE?*********
.>>>> Cities, counties and states have been irresponsibly caving in to these pressures from the smallest minority *******NUMBERS?********of business owners and residents in all jurisdictions at the peril of the massive majority,**********NUMBERS?******** 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.********UNLIKE THE SMALL MINORITY OF AGITATORS WHO HAVE PERSONAL OR PUBLICLY SUBSIDIZED INCOME TO PERMIT THEIR HANGING AROUND CITY HALLS AND COURTHOUSES?**************
Tim and others afraid to take a strong position on something other than neutrality ************EITHER THEY'RE WITH YOU OR AGAINST YOU**************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 ***********MONEY AND EVER-PRESENCE BEING RESTRICTED TO EVIL TOBACCO AND BUSINESS*************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. AND THE PARENTS WHO SUPPORT A BAN BUT APPARENTLY SUBJECT THEIR CHILDREN TO SMOKE-FILLED BARS ? NO ONE IS SUBJECTED TO SMOKE BY FORCE. THE WAY TO BAN SMOKING IN BARS AND RESTAURANTS IS TO STAY AWAY FROM THEM.
Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 ANNOTATIONS BY GAIL O'HARE, ST. PAUL ...with apologies for the capitals ------
_____________________________________________
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/
