--- List manager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is that a hot button or are you looking at the end of my cigarette?:
> St. Paul Councilmember Dave Thune will propose a citywide smoking ban
> in bars and restaurants. Undoubtedly, this will put pressure on Mpls
> to consider the same.
>
> From the story
> (http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4759272.html):
>
> An aide to Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak said she can't recall anyone
> ever suggesting a smoking ban in Minneapolis bars and restaurants.
> "In the two-and-a-half years we've been in office, the issue hasn't
been raised," said Laura Sether.
[TB] Within the last few weeks, I had a conversation with one person
whose office is on the 3rd floor of City Hall who told me there is some
concern that such a ban would put Minneapolis at a disadvantage in
drawing business to the city. It was suggested during that
conversation that a ban should be statewide.
Perhaps the Mayor�s spokesperson should step outside her cube and learn
what�s going on.
--- ken bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I travel to California often where such a ban is already law and the
restaurants and bars seem to be
doing a very healthy business.
[TB] We�re certainly not leading the charge here. California and New
York City both have bans.
--- Mike Jensvold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Finally, smoking. As I indicated in a previous post, I think
outright bans
> (especially in bars) are unreasonable. The risk for non-smoking
> individuals coming into infrequent contact with second hand smoke in
> bars and music venues seems to me to be too low to justify the
> infringement of the rights of owners and patrons to do as they
please. For long-term
> employees in such places, the risk is more serious. Why not require
> disclosure to employees of the risks they are facing in such an
> environment? Try increasing ventilation requirements. Require
> posting of signs to warn patrons of the risks they face from
secondhand smoke
> while enjoying a night on the town.
[TB] I�m unclear what the �rights of owners and patrons to do as they
please� are. In a civilized society there are certain rules we are
expected to follow. Just as at one time we allowed people to burn
leaves in their back yards, build using asbestos and use lead based
paint we�ve learned of the problems these things create and have banned
the practice.
I don�t see how anyone has the right to knowingly injure someone else�s
health. Not to mention the cost of cleaning out the smells. If a
dining establishment spills on a customer, they will generally offer to
pay the cleaning bill, I haven�t seen them offer to pay the cost of
cleaning out the smoke smell.
When the airlines banned smoking, they discovered that their
maintenance costs went down, as smoke was causing premature wear on the
instruments. Would the same be true in food business?
What other legal product isn�t safe even when used according to the
instructions? Umm, light on fire, put in mouth, breath in. Perhaps
instead of taking a payoff from the tobacco companies, we should have
banned the product. Instead we�re using the money to help balance the
budget.
Perhaps Greg Luce was correct, they seem to be smarter over there.
Terrell Brown
Loring Park
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
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
