On 7/27/04 7:11 AM, "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am not clear at this point if Mr. Snyder is arguing that > Smoking Rooms will not be able to protect people or if he > is just ignoring them. Let's assume the latter.
I am ignoring the "smoking rooms" idea. The reason for that is because, apart from Mr. Atherton, nobody in Minneapolis seems to be advocating for that position. I could be wrong, considering that Rocco Forte chose to close his task force to the public, but I can't remember seeing any news articles where Minneapolis council members or bar owners saying they favored that idea. I do know from reading the proceedings from last Friday's council meeting that none of the amendments proposed involved "smoking rooms" - instead, some CMs proposed exemptions based on percentages of sales from alcohol. Bar owners don't like that idea because they don't want the expense of building a "smoking room" and if the St. Paul model were followed, I doubt they want to be forced to hang around all the time since they're the only ones who would be allowed to enter such a room. Plus, what about someone who owns more than one bar, like Tony and Linda Patterson, who, according to the Minnesota Daily, own Sally�s Saloon & Eatery, Maxwell�s American Pub, Harvey�s Bar and Grill and Legends Bar and Grill? They obviously can't hang out at all of them. Owners of small neighborhood bars particularly don't like the "smoking room" idea because they're already pressed for space without having worry about setting some aside for a "smoking room" that may or may not even get used. This potentially creates an unlevel playing field that's even worse than there would be if one city bans smoking in bars and restaurants and the neighboring city doesn't. There are likely a variety of reasons why anti-smoking advocates don't like that idea. Personally, I don't like it because I don't trust it to be an adequate solution. Given our understaffed inspections department, I don't trust such rooms to get adequate oversight for truly being contained. Given the points that Liz Greenbaum makes so eloquently about just how hard it can be for some to survive financially, I don't trust that some workers wouldn't be forced to enter those rooms anyway to serve smokers or at least to clean up after them. Finally, if we're going to just put smokers in a "smoking room" with no service, how is that really different from just sending the smokers outside? Smokers have to go outside practically everywhere else out in public when the cravings hit them - they should be used to it by now. 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
