Right, I don't think restaurateurs will lose money in the long run either. Nor have I advocated limiting economic opportunity for non-smokers. I've also not suggested that smokers have a right to kill non-smokers as Mr. Brauer has suggested by selectively quoting me. Providing a finite number of opportunities, as we regulate taxi's, or defined by tobacco sales, or whatever format, is the more proper thing to do. Some service workers are going to choose to work with smoke, others are not. The notion here is let some people pick their own destiny. My suggestion does not actually fit any of the concerns raised below.
Smokers are looking for a place where, flat out, non-smokers are not invited. We have gay bars and vegetarian restaurants where heteros and meat eaters can still go, they just stick out. The world doesn't end if we decide that 12 places are smoke friendly and you go there at your own risk. I don't see that limiting the opportunity for non-smokers to cook or wait tables. What's more, if you sell permits for smoking it creates a desperately needed revenue source for the city while allowing the municipality to discourage smoking. Jeremy Wieland Northeast -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Brauer Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 1:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Mpls] Smoking ban in Minneapolis Jeremy writes: > I would add though, that coal mining is still rough, we still do, and some > workers are more than happy to mine coal. This is why I think we should > follow New York City, not New York State, and permit some places for > smoking. A finite number. Let bars bid for the smoking permits. Find a > way to let smokers congregate. If service workers don't want to work in > those conditions, they don't have to. Those who don't care have a place to > have a smoke while they're on break. As a former restaurant worker, I support a bar/restaurant smoking ban that would make ALL bar/restaurant workplaces safer for patrons and employees. I'd much rather restrict smokers' "right" to injure others' health in a public place than restrict economic opportunity for those workers who want to preserve their lungs. And no, I don't believe a smoking ban will cost jobs overall. It hasn't anywhere else. David Brauer Kingfield 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 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
