[Mpls] Smoking: What IS the regional solution?

[David Brauer]

Vickie writes:

>From St. Paul:  Mayor Kelly to veto smoking ban
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4844164.html

>From Moorhead:  If Fargo doesn't ban smoking, we won't either. {Aren't
there
a lot of casinos in Fargo)?
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1557/4842101.html

Note that a majority of councilmembers in both cities approved the bans. And
both mayors said they would sign them if there was a regional solution.

(Remind me to call it "property rights hysteria" the next time that issue
comes up. We can do better than inflammatory rhetoric here.)

Of course, I hope Minneapolis emerges as a leader and enacts its own ban. I
remain skeptical that any "regional solution" is real, at least anytime
soon. For now, it strikes me as a sweet-smelling diversion.

My cynicism springs in part because I haven't seen any "regional proposal"
floated. It strikes me that ban opponents have very effectively fought off a
straightforward proposal (a ban) by promising something better, yet not
telling us exactly what they envision.

So far, that "better alternative" appears illusory. St. Paul approved the
"smoking room" concept, but that wasn't enough.

So my question is, what IS the "regional solution?" Obviously, it will mean
something less than a total ban. But how much less? Are there actual
proposals out there from anyone at the table?

I'd like to debate specific plans instead of fighting phantoms.

David Brauer
Kingfield