[Vision2020] More Banning?

[Saundra Lund]

Hi Wayne,

You wrote:
"What do you think about the way Bucers has their set up?"

I'm afraid I can't offer any comment because women aren't allowed inside the
smoking room at Bucers, or at least we weren't when I tried to go a few
years back.  <shaking my head>  It's such a ludicrous thing to type in the
21st century:  no women allowed.  Frankly, if the City Council wants to
stick its nose in such matters as mandating smoking bans, I'd be far more
interested in the cause had they addressed the gender discrimination by
Bucers.  But, that's a different issue.

I really have no dog in this fight -- while I’m a smoker, I rarely visit our
local bars -- but I do have a couple of comments <g>.

First, I think it's a stunningly stupid move on the part of the City to even
consider such a move during tough economic times.  Have we not enough dark
business space already?

Second, I really think the city should get an adequate handle on things
currently on its plate before taking on new enforcement responsibilities.
For instance, let's talk snow removal enforcement as just one example  :-)
Yes, we've had a couple of hard winters in a row, but even in mild winters,
there are sidewalks that aren't shoveled for weeks on end, which presents a
serious public safety hazard that is ignored by the city.  Streets can't be
adequately plowed because the city refuses to address the issue of cars left
on the streets for weeks at a time.  The resulting narrow roads are a safety
hazard for all who travel on them, including emergency vehicles.  So.  Why
on earth the city thinks it should take on a smoking ban in bars to the
detriment of small businesses when it is woefully inadequate at enforcing
rules already on the books is beyond me.

Third, for those who object to smoke in bars, for the love of God, COME UP
WITH YOUR OWN ALTERNATIVES rather than trying to force existing business
owners to cater to your needs.  Isn't that exactly the kind of situation the
free market should address.  Certainly, there are smoke-free bars, so
patronize them.  They don't have pool tables?  Then convince an investor --
or band together yourselves -- to start up a business to suit your needs.
Granted, you wouldn't have a liquor license immediately, but had you tried
to solve your own problem rather than whine and force government to ram your
desires to eliminate lawful behavior that will likely cause some local
businesses to fail, you could have had exactly what you want by now.  Lord
knows there's plenty of dark retail spaces you could check into, and had you
attempted to solve your problem rather than getting government to do it for
you, you could have a nice setting or four that would suit your needs rather
than advocating a ridiculous position that will hurt local business.

Fourth, with respect to Ted's case, I reject it.  No one is forcing anyone
to work in bars where there's second-hand smoke exposure.  For those who
choose to not expose themselves to second-hand smoke, then DON'T APPLY FOR
JOBS WHERE SMOKING IS ALLOWED!  Indeed, I find it incredibly hypocritical
that some of those complaining about second-hand smoke exposure explicitly
choose to work in bars rather than smoke-free restaurants or other
smoke-free settings precisely because they can make better tips in bars, and
a good portion of those tips come from smokers.  I've yet to see anyone who
objects to working in an environment where there's second-hand smoke
exposure refuse to take tips from smokers.  There's an ethical position for
you  :-)

Fifth, what's next?  I think <tongue in cheek> we should outlaw the sales &
operation of inefficient motor vehicles in Moscow because they are bad for
the environment, which means they are bad for all of us.  What about
donorcycles -- we should all be aware of the significant impact on health
care costs for all of us from those who choose to ride motorcycles.  And, if
we want to talk about health risks, then let's go after restaurants that
serve red meat because you'd have to live in a cave to not know that the
consumption of red meat is linked to lots of health problems including heart
disease, which is THE leading cause of death in this country.  And, what
about those vegetarian employees working in restaurants with no vegetarian
options?!  Quite often, an indirect compensation for restaurant employees is
free or reduced prices on meals while working, yet if the restaurant doesn't
offer any vegetarian options . . . so perhaps we should get the City to pass
a law mandating that ALL restaurants offer vegetarian option.  Yeah --
that's the ticket!

Sixth, I don't know Bill Parks, but I will say that I might be more
sympathetic to his cause had he thrown his weight behind the significant
concerns for Moscow's air quality problem from allowing bonfires in
neighborhoods.  *That* is an issue that affects entire neighborhoods . . .
and the quality of life for people in their own homes and on their own
property, yet I don't recall him addressing that.  Instead, he'd rather have
the government address social & the business concerns of others.

If what's been posted is accurate (I don't know if it is), I can't imagine
Mr. Parks would be too happy if Moscow decided to outlaw the sale of
products manufactured outside the country -- my guess would be he would
vigorously object to local government messing with the legal activities of
the free market in that respect.  It's really too bad he fails to see the
correlation . . . 

Am I missing something?  Isn't any business owner interested able to operate
a bar or tavern where smoking is prohibited???  Again let Parks & those who
share his concern open & operate their own smoke-free venue rather than
trying to get the government to force others' businesses to do things His
way.  Isn't that what the free market is supposed to do?


JMHO,
Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
~ Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009 through life plus
70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
author.*****



-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of bear at moscow.com
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 4:22 PM
To: Ted Moffett
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] More Banning?


Ted,

What about something less draconian than a ban? What about a physical
separation with air exchangers? What do you think about the way Bucers has
their set up?

I can tell you that as a smoker, I am less inclined to compromise with
total bans and advocates of total bans when their interests are up for
consideration later. And I vote.  There has to be a middle ground
somewhere.

And you mention that  keeping bars smoke free is a benefit to the workers
in these businesses who need the jobs yet are exposed to second hand
smoke. In the case here in Moscow, I don't even think the employees were
even asked. Based on the tape I saw of the meeting before city council on
the 18th of May, it was an individual that is a bar customer, and from his
comments, I have to believe he was talking about Mingles. So, because he
doesn't like the smoky atmosphere in Mingles,  all of the bars in Moscow
have to ban smoking?

I just think much more research needs to be done to see IF there is a
problem before the Council passes a ban. The quick, knee jerk reaction,
the simple solution to the problem IF there is one, is to pass a ban.