On 5/31/04 7:13 PM, "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me propose a solution that is both inexpensive and > practical. First you should be aware that the > technology already exists for "negative air" rooms > in hospitals. These rooms are used to isolate patients > with highly contagious airborne diseases. Smoke is much > easier to contain and far less dangerous than microbes. > > So here's my solution. Create rooms to serve as smoking > parlors, lounges, clubrooms, or whatever else you want > to call them. Insure that there is less air pressure > in these rooms than in other areas using existing > ventilation technology, thus creating a negative > air room. It will always be possible to insure > that the air pressure is negative enough to keep smoke > within the room and if the exchange rate is high enough > it might be possible to reduce even the exposure of > smokers to secondhand smoke (of course cigarettes might > burn a little faster). Do not provide service in > these rooms to insure that employees are not exposed to smoke. > If you want to do this with class do it with glass walls so that > patrons can see out and others can see in. We can nickname > them "fishbowls." > > Okay, it's the anti-smokers turn. Shoot! This may be practical, but I find it difficult to believe that it's inexpensive. Producing negative pressure would presumably require a good deal of energy, not to mention, smoke tends to play havoc with mechanical stuff over time, so there would be cleaning and maintenance costs. And if those are ignored, then there will be substantially higher repair costs. And even if service is not provided in these "fishbowls", there's still going to be a need for employees to enter to do things like empty ashtrays and round up stray glasses, bottles and whatever other detritus accumulates. Or mop up the occasional spilled drink or the results of someone's excessive consumption, and so on. So I guess I have to question the practicality of this idea as well. I've said this before, but I would bet most establishments would choose to ban smoking rather than invest in the ventilation upgrades and other renovations needed to employ this suggestion. Which would leave the few remaining holdouts not only paying through the nose for all these renovations, but also for the licensing fees required to cover the city's administrative costs of the inspector and database upgrades that would be needed. I read recently in the Minneapolis Observer that there's something like 500 bars and restaurants with liquor licenses. How many of those do people think would continue to promote smoking in their establishments given the cost issues outlined above? Perhaps just as importantly, how many would need to before it makes more sense from a cost/benefit standpoint to just institute a smoking ban rather than run a licensing program for what could be just a handful of establishments? Mark Snyder Windom Park 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
