Steve Nelson wrote: > Because someone would have to clean those rooms and serve in > those rooms.
The proposed St. Paul "ban" prohibits service in smoking rooms. As I originally proposed these rooms on the List, I suggested that service did not need to be provided. This is really a non-issue. No one is proposing that employees be forced to provide service in smoking rooms. As to cleaning, if it is done after hours then employees would not be exposed to smoke. You could always require everyone to exit the room while it was cleaned. I'm not aware of any health problems related to the residue from tobacco smoke. Even if there were, I think that rubber gloves would provide sufficient protection. Ken Jorissen wrote: > 1. Employee health - Would they enter the rooms? Who would clean > it? Is this about protecting employees? Please see above. > 2. Enforcement - This would have to be codified, implemented, > and inspected. This would be a long, painful, and expensive task. Everyone seems to ignoring the fact that cigarettes provide an immense amount of tax revenue. I don't see any reason why all expenses related to regulation and enforcement could not be covered by licensing fees and fines. If you do please point it out. Once again, if smoking rooms are not financially advantageous for businesses then there wouldn't be any reason to provide them. > 3. Unlevel playing field - Smaller businesses may not be able > to put in smoking rooms and thus could be at a disadvantage. I'm not sure why this wouldn't be an economy of scale. Smaller business would have smaller smoking rooms and smaller ventilation systems. If it is true that smoking rooms would be prohibitively expensive, for some small businesses, then I would support giving them exceptions. Isn't that reasonable? You have to remember that anti-smoking advocates are trying to change a social system in which people have made an investment with reasonable assumptions. I think that business owners who can show significant hardship should be grandfathered (at least until the business changes hands). Steve Nelson wrote: > Connie Nompelis had written: > > P.S. This whole thing kind of reminds me of the > > seat-belt law, or the bicycle helmet law, both of > > which are ridiculous since they aim to protect > > individuals from themselves. > > Wrong--they are aimed to protect the rest of our pocketbooks > from them since they are in the same insurance pools as the > rest of us. If motorcyclists had to be in their own separate > insurance pool it would be to expensive for them to afford. > The same with those who don't wear their seatbelts. Their > injuries are often worse than had they been wearing them and > they are therefore a greater drain on the insurance pool by their > greater costs. > > Don't say that their "freedom of choice" doesn't hurt the rest of us! First of all, I don't think that it's true that motorcyclists cannot be in their own insurance pool. When I first started riding motorcycles in the Sixties I had insurance from companies that only covered motorcycles (and boy was it cheap). Don't forget that motorcycles, on the average, don't do as much harm to others as automobiles and trucks. As far as I understand, injuries to the driver of the motorcycles are not covered by their liability insurance, they're covered by health insurance. There are also other ways to handle the problem, such as wavers if drivers are not wearing seatbelts or bikers are not wearing helmets. 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
