David Brauer wrote: > Tim writes: > > > Doesn't the ordinance require that smoking be done at least > > 25 feet from the entrance? So the first 25 feet from the entrance to > > the patio would be reserved for non-smokers. > > I think that's Bloomington's ordinance, not Minneapolis's. Others can > confirm. > > I agree with the prediction that there will be more smoking on street > entryways and on outdoor patios. Fortunately, the health > risks (except to the smoker) are far fewer in outdoor environments. > We'll see how the drama plays out, but we'll need to see Act One before > moving to Act Two.
I couldn't find any restrictions in the Minneapolis ordinance limiting "outside" smoking. It is interesting that anti-smoking advocates' interest in protecting the public's health stops at the front door. While Mr. Brauer states that the health risks are far fewer in outdoor environments, I don't know of any studies comparing the risks to service employees between indoor and outdoor exposure. In fact, I don't know of any studies that specifically examine the second-hand smoke risks to employees or customers in bars and restaurants. And given the enthusiasm of the anti-smoking movement, it is surprising that such (entirely feasible) studies do not exist. Could it be that such studies are not of interest to anti-smoking advocates? Of course, I'd be happy to retract my question, if such studies are currently underway. 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
