[Mpls] St. Paul considers smoking ban - should Mpls?

[Jeremy Wieland]

"You screw him with this solution."

Yes.  If you follow my preferred suggestion and allow a finite number of
places to be all smoking, then the owner must pick which devil to dance
with.  Increasingly the no smoking movement is heading towards bans instead
of regulation.  I don't see the current circumstances, the smoking and
second-hand smoking sections under one roof, continuing indefinitely.  So
why not start talking about a solution that is an alternative to banning
smoking in bars and restaurants outright.

I'm glad to see Wizardmarks and Mr. Bradley jumping in to start talking
about this.  We don't know what the results in Minnesota will be if a
significant smoking ban takes hold.  Duluth has such a ban, but survives
because Duluth isn't a big place and folks cross the city line to smoke in
bars after enjoying smoke free restaurants in town.  I suspect that if the
smoking ban passes in St. Paul there will be a huge migration of people in
both directions.  Non-smokers heading to Saint Paul and smokers coming to
Minneapolis may be in our future.  Or no one will care much until winter.  

In response to Wizardmarks concerns, I make to claims be able to part the
Red Sea.  I only want flesh out alternatives to an outright ban before
Minneapolis goes the way of Duluth and Saint Paul.



Jeremy Wieland
Circulation Director
Utne magazine
1624 Harmon Place
Minneapolis, MN  55403
612.338.5040 x326
www.utne.com

-----Original Message-----
From: WizardMarks [mailto:wizardmarks at earthlink.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 3:13 PM
To: mpls at mnforum.org
Cc: jeremy at utne.com
Subject: Re: [Mpls] St. Paul considers smoking ban - should Mpls?



Jeremy Wieland wrote:

>Given that there are smokers, and that smokers seek out smoking
>environments, why not either pass an "all or nothing" ordinance, or provide
>for a finite number of "smoking establishments."  The former would ban the
>"kissing your sister" solution that we have now.  Either your entire place
>is for smoking, and that includes pipe and cigar, or you're no smoking.
Let
>the market decide what they prefer.  The later would allow a finite number
>of places where smoking is part of the ambiance (tip, are they selling
>tobacco at the bar?) to continue.  This solution would provide a smoke free
>environment for service workers looking to live a little longer, and would
>not alienate surly cantankerous smokers.
>
WM: What about established restaurants whose business, built up over a 
couple of generations from virtually nothing to a restaurant that 
supports a family and provides 50+ jobs to the community. Which set of 
regular customers does he kick out? He follows all the rules, he keeps a 
genuinely nice establishment, etc., etc.
Either way he goes, he loses half is regular business--every day regular 
business. You screw him with  this solution.

WizardMarks, Central

>________________________________
>
>Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
>Post messages to: mailto:mpls at mnforum.org
>Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
>