[Mpls] Smoking ban participation

[Mike Jensvold]

At 07:40 PM 4/6/2005, Michael Thompson wrote:
>This is exactly one of the points I made to my city councilperson and the
>various state legislators I mailed and emailed regarding the ban.
>
>My original point was, and still is, this: I suspect 99% of smoking ban
>proponents will never stoop low enough to patronize 99% of the bars affected
>by the ban. I'll bet my paycheck that virtually NO ban proponents will ever
>deign to set foot in Adrians or the Cardinal Bar or any of the working class
>establishments in NE. The ban is about elitists being able to listen to
>"jazz" at their whim without having to shower when they got home. The bars
>that will struggle to survive.....well, that's just tough luck. I believe
>many smoking ban proponents wanted their trendy jazzy-spots to be smoke free
>for their own selfish interests, but packaged it as a "public health"
>measure. Incredibly disingenous.
>
>One of the inherent qualities of the ban was a subtle elitism espoused by
>its proponents. Smoking is, for the most part, a habit of the lower SES
>classes. Not only did ban proponents know what was better for people, but in
>the adoption of the ban an implicit patronization was occuring through the
>"legal" protection of these less informed individuals to protect them from
>themselves.


I'm not quite as cynical as Mr. Thompson, but almost.  The ban was 
unreasonable, and it will further alienate the young and working class (as 
I wrote on this list in May of last year) from what remains of the liberal 
establishment.  I certainly won't be voting against anyone based solely on 
the smoking ban - there are more important issues - but others may.  Watch 
out, DFLers.

Mike Jensvold
Ward 10