"You screw him with this solution." Yes. If you follow my preferred suggestion and allow a finite number of places to be all smoking, then the owner must pick which devil to dance with. Increasingly the no smoking movement is heading towards bans instead of regulation. I don't see the current circumstances, the smoking and second-hand smoking sections under one roof, continuing indefinitely. So why not start talking about a solution that is an alternative to banning smoking in bars and restaurants outright.
I'm glad to see Wizardmarks and Mr. Bradley jumping in to start talking about this. We don't know what the results in Minnesota will be if a significant smoking ban takes hold. Duluth has such a ban, but survives because Duluth isn't a big place and folks cross the city line to smoke in bars after enjoying smoke free restaurants in town. I suspect that if the smoking ban passes in St. Paul there will be a huge migration of people in both directions. Non-smokers heading to Saint Paul and smokers coming to Minneapolis may be in our future. Or no one will care much until winter. In response to Wizardmarks concerns, I make to claims be able to part the Red Sea. I only want flesh out alternatives to an outright ban before Minneapolis goes the way of Duluth and Saint Paul. Jeremy Wieland Circulation Director Utne magazine 1624 Harmon Place Minneapolis, MN 55403 612.338.5040 x326 www.utne.com -----Original Message----- From: WizardMarks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 3:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Mpls] St. Paul considers smoking ban - should Mpls? Jeremy Wieland wrote: >Given that there are smokers, and that smokers seek out smoking >environments, why not either pass an "all or nothing" ordinance, or provide >for a finite number of "smoking establishments." The former would ban the >"kissing your sister" solution that we have now. Either your entire place >is for smoking, and that includes pipe and cigar, or you're no smoking. Let >the market decide what they prefer. The later would allow a finite number >of places where smoking is part of the ambiance (tip, are they selling >tobacco at the bar?) to continue. This solution would provide a smoke free >environment for service workers looking to live a little longer, and would >not alienate surly cantankerous smokers. > WM: What about established restaurants whose business, built up over a couple of generations from virtually nothing to a restaurant that supports a family and provides 50+ jobs to the community. Which set of regular customers does he kick out? He follows all the rules, he keeps a genuinely nice establishment, etc., etc. Either way he goes, he loses half is regular business--every day regular business. You screw him with this solution. WizardMarks, Central >________________________________ > >Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy >Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls > REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
