Mark Snyder wrote: > I'm willing to admit that even with the concerns that I and > others have expressed about it, the smoking rooms idea may > well be valid. > > But with virtually nobody showing interest in it and with the > smoking ban ordinance already passed by city council and signed > by the mayor, it's also pretty much moot, at least for the > immediate future. I really doubt council is going to be inclined > to revisit this without at least giving the ordinance a shot in > its existing form.
Minneapolis' ordinance could change tomorrow. What St. Paul does will have a dynamic effect on smoking ordinances throughout the Metro. What is really amazing to me is the lack of coverage about Smoking Rooms in all of the Metro newspapers. It was a major feature of the proposed St. Paul ordinance and there is a city where Smoking Rooms have been successfully implemented, yet there is no article. This has to be an example of journalism in the great tradition of William Randolph Hearst. > My main argument, however, is that if the bar owners themselves aren't > showing interest in this idea, what's the point of pursuing > it? The only outcome I can see is just another case of useless verbiage > being added to our city's already-overstuffed code of ordinances. > Why bother? Businesses are not currently interested because the City of Minneapolis has provided them with a non-competition agreement. The concept of market economies is that the desires of consumers will result in innovation and competition between businesses. This has been one of my major points throughout this discussion: If there is no demand for smoking rooms, they won't exist. Because the news media has failed to provide information about the Smoking Rooms there is currently no demand. This is also an issue related to Mr. Bernstein's survey results. If you don't ask the question you will never know how many people would have supported them. Please keep in mind, that smoking rooms would do more to protect the public than Minneapolis' current ordinance. Jim Bernstein wrote: > Your "political philosophy" that you said you spent so much time > developing is yours to keep and cherish and I wish you good luck with > it! But please, do not insult the rest of us by asserting that we do > not respects the right and choices of others because we do not embrace > your personal "political philosophy"!! I am not insulting you because of your failure to embrace my philosophy, I am saying that your failure to respect the rights and choices of others is, from my perspective, unfair and unjust. If you don't agree, that's your right (as expressed in my political philosophy ;-). Andrew Reineman wrote: > <AR> I would not have a problem with that solution. > Personally I would like to see double entrance doors before > I would enter the establishment. But I think that could work. > I would also put in the caveat of licensing fees to pay for > added inspections to make sure the buildings actually do have > separate HVAC systems and are up to code. But I also do like > the idea that those rooms would be unserviced, thus > not exposing the workers to dangers of secondhand smoke. I don't think that double doors are necessary. I don't think they are not required in Vancouver. If you have a control system that keeps the air pressure negative there's no need for a second door. As a fiscal conservative I fully support that any governmental costs associate with Smoking Rooms be cover by fees. And, I would support rigorous inspections. The Health Dept. person in Vancouver told me that there was a lot of confusion in the beginning, but that it worked itself out in time. This is to be expected when you are implementing something that no one else has done. He also told me that if cleaning is required, everyone is ask to extinguish their cigarettes and the employee waits for the necessary air exchanges to be sure that the air is free of smoke before entering. > <AR> This is not high school level statistics. :-) And the study is > considered groundbreaking. Again it shows that even small amounts of > secondhand smoke can cause major increases in the risk of developing > heart disease. Up to to a 60% increase, depending on exposure. There are several general concepts that should be taught to the general public so that they can evaluate the worthiness of scientific and statistical evidence. Each of these concepts has a formal definition (that I won't go into here), but fall under the general concepts of internal and external validity, which includes validity, reliability, generalizability, and replication. I'm not going to refute all of the weak points in this study, but let it be said that you cannot judge the validity, reliability, or generalizability of a finding based on a single study no matter how large. A study of the effects of second-hand smoke on partners of smokers in Great Britain may, even if it is reliable, not generalize to the effects of second-hand smoke in bars in restaurants in the U.S. for any number of reasons including genetics, diet, types of cigarettes, the size of British homes and businesses, climate, etc. Once again, my argument supporting Smoking Rooms rests on the provision that they protect others who don't want to be impacted by cigarette smoke, not on scientific evidence that second-hand smoke is harmless. Michael Atherton Prospect Park PS: I am sorry for any grammatical, spelling, or semantic errors, but the only way that I can have the time to participate in this forum is to type really fast without a lot of editing. 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
