R.T. writes: This has actually set off somewhat of a trend in New York where the new word is, if I have this right, "smurting"---smoking and flirting---because smokers looking for partners who can tolerate the smoke have a self selected group in that smoking line outside the front door.
This all probably won't be such a big deal in entertainment districts, but it could cause real problems outside bars in residential neighborhoods like the Chatterbox or Maslack's....especially with bars now open until 2 a.m. As I've said, I think the ban is going to pass...and I think on most levels that's a good thing. And I don't think this issue in itself is enough of a reason not to do this but I want to address this, and see if there is anything we can do about it, BEFORE there is a problem. Me: Is this that huge a problem, really? Even neighborhood bars have outdoor patios (for example, Westrum's in my neighborhood), and I haven't heard tons of complaints about the social chatter there, even at 2 a.m. Granted, more people may go outside to smoke, but I believe it's a matter of degree, not a sea change. (For the other eight months of the year, everyone's windows are closed anyway.) But if there is a problem, it's a simple matter of enforcement. The city has the "hammer," in terms of a liquor license. Currently, a bar linked to excessive violations (of the peace or other laws) is subject to a city Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) hearing. A TAC hearing that can lead to fines and license revocation, though it's meant to work out problems short of that. A bar's patrons who disturb the peace outdoors probably violate current city law, and if it isn't a violation, it should be. Bars are made responsible CURRENTLY for patrons' noise and behavior around their facility - the "smoking ban" doesn't change that. Encourage the neighbors to call the bar, then 911 (if only to register the complaint in police records) and subject the bar to penalties if they cannot get their customers to pipe down. I don't think this will require more cops on the street, though in the beginning, it may be an enforcement burden on already-pressed license inspectors. However, the cost is minimal compared to the public health benefits. In the end, smokers should respect the rights of workers and other not to breathe their smoke - and the rights of others to get a good night's sleep. This is Minneapolis; we can make it work. Let's not avoid doing the right thing from fear of the heedless few. PS While I applaud RT's desire to work with other localities, it shouldn't be an excuse to wait in Minneapolis. Delay sends the wrong message about other places - especially the state - enacting a ban. 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
