[Mpls] Mpls smoking ban already has Council majority - but may getveto

[David Brauer]

On May 10, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Jeremy Wieland wrote:

> Regarding a smoking ban, I would like to reiterate my hope that the 
> Council
> will continue to allow a small number of bars to remain smoking, and 
> expand
> the smoking limitations from restaurants and bars to include 0coffee 
> houses
> and any other place where service workers would be subject to second 
> hand
> smoke.

My understanding is that all such establishments are included in a ban 
(including bowling alleys).

> As for the desire for a flat out ban, banal is the only word that 
> comes to
> mind.  This is an unimaginative effort to prevent a social minority 
> from
> associating in a public environment.

That is assuredly not the intent. Does anyone say this about the 
Minnesota Clean indoor air act? The proposed ban has the effect of 
making smokers go outside. Smoking a cig takes, what, 3 minutes?

>  Just as we limit the number of cabs
> and liqueur licenses, make a small number of smoking permits available.
> Then every one is happy.

Given the plentiful calls over the years to lift cab-license limits, I 
don't think that's a great example to cite.

The bigger problem with "smoking permits" is the intense 
manipulation/lobbying of the political system that would result.

The very beauty of a ban is that it regulates your nearby competitors 
too - and that even playing field minimizes any loss of business, 
especially to politically favored competitors.

> Service workers don't have to abuse themselves if
> they don't want to.

I doubt supporters of this position would favor the relaxation of other 
workplace safety laws. Why should this exception be allowed?

Also, there's a distinctly yuppie tint to the idea that service workers 
can easily avoid breathing your dirty air. I was a restaurant worker 
for 12 years. LOTS of low-wage restaurant workers have little choice 
but expose themselves to your toxins. We should reduce the burden ON 
THEM where ever we can.

> For you smokers out there, raise a little Cain.  Alcohol doesn't give 
> off
> second-hand smoke, but due to abuse, violence and mood alteration it 
> clearly
> has definable second-hand effects.

Sure, but those effects don't happen (or rarely do) IN PUBLIC PLACES.

We regulate consumption of alcohol in public places MUCH more tightly 
than ciggies now.

For example, there are:
Dram shop laws for overserving booze - but not too much cig smoke in 
said dram shop.
Consumption penalties for users (.10, soon to be .08, based on 
reasonable impairment data) to reduce the effects Jeremy cites in the 
public sphere.

>  Under the logic expressed by some of the
> non-smokers here, one would clearly perceive the need to pursue liqueur
> next.  Or red meat.  Perhaps tea with caffeine.  Because God forbid
> something in this town should be regulated rather than prohibited or
> mandated.

It IS a slippery slope - Jeremy is right to be on alert for the danger.

However, the slippery slope is an all-too-easy dodge for any social 
reform. Let's concentrate on merits of the issue at hand - it's the 
best way to make any decision without falling down any slopes.

David Brauer
Kingfield