On 6/1/04 3:18 PM, "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Um, based on Bill Kahn's post, I don't think it's that simple. "...in Atherton's post, but his proposal for smoking rooms with lower air pressure is pretty much how any good HVAC system in a restaurant or bar works now, except that they seldom go as far as actually maintaining a lower pressure and settle for a uniform inflow of air from nonsmoking areas into smoking areas and out, either to the atmosphere or a higher quality filtering system than would be found normally. The latter would save some energy, but still be kind of stinky (hence my "mythical" smoke-free areas as described in an earlier post). To go the extra mile and maintain these rooms at a negative pressure to those surrounding them as Atherton proposes would require venting directly to the atmosphere or an expensive system to recirculate air while maintaining pressure as well as "air locks" to provide free movement from one area to another�it would be far from fail-safe unless they had the kind of redundancy as in hospitals." >> 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. Well, sheesh. Why not just have employees of bars and restaurants where respirators while at work and see what kind of impact that has on patronage? >> 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. Just like the ventilation suggestion, it's easy to say this in theory, but to do it in reality isn't quite so easy. Let's say it would cost $100,000 a year to administer this program of licensing certain establishments to allow smoking. If 500 establishments sign up, it would work out to about $200 a pop, no big deal. If five establishments sign up, it would work out to $20K a pop. After those owners are revived from the sticker shock, they're probably not going to be so interested, either. Meanwhile, our already overloaded City Attorney's office and Inspections department has just wasted a great deal of staff time trying to figure out how to administer this program since they would have to come up with something in order for Council to vote on it. As for this "sin tax" idea, I would be interested in finding out just what kinds of "sin taxes" City Council has the authority to assess without getting approval from our dysfunctional state Legislature. That's my issue - we've already seen from the Clean Indoor Air Act that most, if not all, establishments would choose to ban smoking rather than follow strict indoor air quality rules. So why not make it simple on everyone and just do the ban? >> 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. The problem with this comparison is that none of these "special populations" are engaging in a practice that is a known detriment to the health of those workers or other patrons who happen to be located nearby. That's what makes smoking so much worse than many of these other habits people may have. The act of drinking alcohol or using most other drugs can be accomplished without exposing others to toxic chemicals. I have a different suggestion: How about if we allowed bars and restaurants to offer those nicotine-containing gums or patches for folks who are so addicted that they cannot manage for an evening without their fix and don't want to go stand outside for five minutes? We could even offer lollipops or something to give the severely addicted something to do with their hands. Would that be sufficiently accommodating to smokers without continuing to expose others to secondhand smoke? 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
