[Mpls] Candidates who Question or Equivocate on Smoking Ban are Defeated?

[freealonzo at mn.rr.com]

Mr. Surmak's argument would be stronger if it wasn't for the fact that 
the St. Paul Ban didn't even stop smoking in 50 percent of the drinking 
establishments in St. Paul.  There are a lot more than a "small number 
of bars" open to smoking.  Plus, although I have no proof, I am 
guessing some of the bars are playing fast and loose with their alcohol 
v. food sales as I can't for the life of me figure out how Billy's Bar 
on Grand Avenue can get by as a "smoking bar."

Dean E. Carlson
East Harriet, Ward 10


----- Original Message -----
From: Psurmak at aol.com
Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 1:43 pm
Subject: [Mpls] Candidates who Question or Equivocate on Smoking Ban 
are Defeated?

> The smoking ban dynamics are not hard to figure out....80% of voting 
adults in Minnesota don't smoke, and are most likely to support a 
complete ban and resist any attempts to revisit the issue.  Personally, 
I think a total ban  on smoking is a crock and a violation of privacy 
rights; I think the partial ban  in St. Paul is reasonable, with a 
small number of "bars" still open to the  smoking public.  These 
establishments are far fewer in number than their  non-smoking 
counterparts, and offer the remaining 20% an option, albeit a  limited 
one.  Anyone who doesn't want to sit in a smoky environment can  stay 
away; people who don't want to work in this environment will have a 
wide selection of non-smoking food/beverage establishments to work in 
(the  idea that a handful of smoking bars will discriminate or restrict 
anyone's  employment opportunities in this town is just plain stupid).  
I think this  compromise is very reasonable, and hope St Paul's policy 
doesn't change, and  Minneapolis/Hennepin Co. revisit their restrictive 
policy.  
>
> Peter  Surmak
> Linden Hills