Mark Snyder wrote: > 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.
Let me try and explain how simple this is. First creating room divisions is really easy. It just involves a little framing and drywall. Making structures air tight is not difficult, in fact most of the difficulty in housing construction these days is insuring that wall spaces are ventilated to prevent moisture build up and mold. Now, you know those big inflatable characters and children's play spaces? All they need to create a semi-rigid structure is a small fan to create positive air pressure. As to cleaning and maintenance, it's unlikely that it would be any more costly than that for current ventilation systems in bars and restaurants. Having worked in restaurants I know that one of the biggest problems for ventilation systems is not smoke it's grease. > 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. Having done a fair amount of remodeling in a century old home, I also know that there are respirators designed to filter out all kinds of dust, smoke, and fumes. > 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. I don't see why this would be a problem. I can only imagine that a few establishments would want to provide conveniences for smokers, so why prevent them from doing so? All governmental costs could be covered by fees and licensing. In fact you could include a "sin" tax as well. > 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. Isn't this how the market works? If businesses cannot recoup their costs from smokers, then we would end up with a virtual ban anyway. > 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? How many of these establishments cater to other special populations: Strip joints, gay bars, motorcycle gangs, etc.? If there's a market and it's profitable then someone will build it and they will come. > 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? Laura Waterman Wittstock wrote: > This assumes that smoking lighted tobacco will always be the U.S. > preferred method of drug ingestion. It might not. Nicotine > water failed to get FDA clearance but something like it may become > available in the future. Other delivery means than smoking could > very well be the next post public safety phase. > I have no doubt that the tobacco producers are working on not > only new markets for old fashioned smoking but new delivery systems > for getting the drug into human bodies. Bling. Bling. We have very different philosophical positions on this issue and it is very unlikely that we will ever agree. People reading this will most likely fall on one side of this argument or another. Here's your position as I see it: Smoking is evil and very bad for people, therefore you must takes steps to protect individuals from themselves, each other, and the devil tobacco companies. Because your insight into this problems is somehow more in touch with the Truth you can more wisely make decisions for these poor souls than they can for themselves. And, because you are "helping" people you can use governmental "force" to ensure that everyone is "protected." Here is my position: Smoking is very bad for people, but adults have the right to engage in dangerous pursuits if they wish, as long as they don't put anyone else at risk. That's my point, providing for the General Welfare does not mean making moral decisions for people, it means providing information and protecting people from each other. Unlike you, I don't believe that I have an open channel with God (or whatever) that provides me the authority to force my choices on others. Here is my vision of an almost Perfect World: The citizens of Minneapolis are free to partake of their vices by going to the downtown Red Light District. You might stop in a Caf� roll a joint or a cigarette and indulge. Afterwards, you could stop by your favorite brothel and partake of another series of indulgences. If you find this shocking please keep in mind that there is no human society has not indulged in mind altering substances (or practices) and no "civilized society" that I am aware where prostitution has existed. What I have described here is perfectly acceptable in Amsterdam and prostitution is legal in the Netherlands, Germany, and Spain. It is our "Land of the Free" where our Puritan ancestors and their descendents still enforce their dated morality on us. Just for interest sake I'm providing a link to a caf� in Amsterdam. It might take a while to download, but if you magnify it a little you'll be able to see the marijuana plants growing in the windows: http://www.umn.edu/~athe0007/images/Cafe1.JPG The European sky is not falling! Michael Atherton Prospect 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
