Posted on 10/27/2001 5:47:54 PM PDT by Max McGarrity
At least one other poll has been done to gauge Duluthians' opinions on the smoking ban.
But results of that scientific survey won't be released, said Steve O'Neil of the Twin Ports Youth and Tobacco Free Coalition. The nonprofit group is lobbying in support of a ban.
The survey was done more than a month ago. Releasing results now could misrepresent community views, O'Neil said.
"The poll numbers, they're a snapshot,'' he said. "People were interviewed in early September. Things change. The way people feel changes. I don't think it would be fair to present numbers from a month ago.''
More than 400 voters were called in early September and were asked a series of non-leading questions related to the issue, O'Neil said. His group received the results later in the month.
"The results were very -- how do I want to phrase this -- we're very pleased with the results,'' he said. "I wish I could say more. But I just feel -- you know. The numbers we got are favorable. I can say that.''
In addition to the poll, the Twin Ports Youth and Tobacco Free Coalition is telephoning and lobbying thousands of Duluth residents, hoping to influence their vote on Nov. 6. Those calls are ongoing, O'Neil said.
"The things we're hearing in our phone banking are favorable, too,'' he said. "We continue to find support for the referendum. But both sides are campaigning hard. I think it's going to be a close vote.''
On the other side of the smoking-ban debate, the People's Voice Committee has not conducted a telephone survey or taken any polls.
"We don't have the kind of money for that, quite frankly,'' the group's Vickie Haugland said.
The association is made up of bar owners, restaurateurs and others who feel business owners should be entitled to decide whether to allow smoking.
The ordinance goes to Mayor Gary Doty next week for his signature, but the mayor really isn't a fan of the ban. So...let's let him hear from us.
Mayor Gary L. Doty
gdoty@ci.duluth.mn.us
Telephone: 218/723-3295
Fax: 218/723-3540
Surgeon General finds tobacco smoke contains
anti-anthrax properties.
"In a searing memo to staff, we noted that even second
hand smoke seems to quell the bacteria anthrax", Claims
secretary Mary Liggett-Myers.
More to follow.
I'd like it.
<exhale>
And you KNOW that's true.
Should gay business owners be entitled to decide whether to allow homosexual activity in their establishments?
Smoking is detrimental to those who do it and to those around them. It is addictive and self indulgent. More and more responsible communities are banning it in public places.
Smoking is detrimental to those who do it and to those around them. It is addictive and self indulgent. More and more responsible communities are banning it in public places.
Is sexual activity in a business legal? I assume that gay business owners can allow two gays to kiss in their business establishment.
In a PUBLICLY OWNED BUILDING I agree that the government should be allowed to determine whether or not smoking is allowed.
In a PRIVATELY OWNED BUILDING the owner of the building should be allowed to determine whether or not smoking is allowed.
What makes the government all powerful over PRIVATE property?
This is something that should not be.
Nothing. Private property used by the public is a small portion of PRIVATE property but no private property can be used in a manner that is harmful to the public.
A PRIVATE restaurant must abide by government standards of sanitation, etc.
It is one of government's rolls to protect the public from self indulgent detrimental practices - thus the outlawing of homosexual activity in gay establishments and the outlawing of smoking in public accessed establishments. Both activities have been proven detrimental - to the indulgers and to others.
Where's the proof? We have seen proofs debunked before and probably will again.
So. Where do you draw the line? How about if a restaurant or bar makes itself a private club, charging a membership to enter, and posted clearly with its smoking policies? Does an owner have THAT right?
BTW, it is NOT the government's role to "protect the public from self indulgent detrimental practices," at least it's not in the copy of the Constitution I have. Maybe yours has been rewritten to be politically correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.