[Vision2020] More Banning?

[bear at moscow.com]

Saundra,


WOW! You put it much better, and my wife says calmer than I did.

I agree that there are MANY issues which should be occupying the time of
the city council and city attorney other than a ban on smoking. We could
look on legislation that requires city employees that are responsible for
day to day city operations to live in the city! Currently we have a
situation where certain city employees are influential in the passage of
legislation that effects the citizenry of the city, but have nothing to
lose, because they don't live here! Imagine being influential in the
spending of tax dollars when you don't have to live with the results!  The
additional money needed to do project X will never have to come out of
your pockets. And the snow removal issue is another.  I grew up in
Pennsylvania and spent some time in Alaska, both of which get far more
snow than Moscow, and there are some simple, low cost solutions that could
solve a lot of the problems, but I digress *S*

Thanks for your comments on the current issues!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>