[Mpls] Smoking ban in Mpls

[David Brauer]

Steve Brandt:

> I am glad this state has a Clean Indoor Air Act, and it has increased my
> enjoyment of restaurants and bars.  But I'm not so sure that banning
> smoking completely at such places would reduce my exposure to it.  When
> my workplace banned indoor smoking in the early 1990s, those of us
> coming and going from building entrances ran a gantlet of smokers.  We
> were exposed to a lot more smoke than when all smoking in the building
> was limited to a single well-ventilated room. 

Steve's point is the underpinning behind one of Skyway News' April Fools
jokes this year - that the city would begin requiring smoke alarms on
building EXTERIORS. (And now I'm thinking, you never know...)

However, Steve's observation only underscores that a smoking ban based on
health, not comfort.

As big a drag as outdoor blue clouds can be, no study has found that they
significantly impact non-smokers' health. (I admit, though, they annoy me,
too.) On the other hand, there is ample evidence about the toxicity of
second-smoke from indoor exposure.

Therefore, banning indoor - but not outdoor - smoking is logical if you're
proceeding on public health grounds...and a libertarian one: the right to
swing your fist stops at my face (or in this case, bloodstream).

Also, as to the lack of comments on Michael's wish  that someone should just
invent a machine that would eliminate secondhand smoke dangers: I'll bite.

It's a nifty wish, but don't you think someone would have invented it by
now, given the hefty and expensive debate over this issue in other cities?

I've been told by a bar owners who looked into such a machine that you
simply can't replace the air quickly, quietly and inexpensively enough.

Doesn't mean it can't be done, but it's probably unlikely - me, I'd rather
spend our energy developing that Wayback Machine they were always talking
about in Rocky & Bullwinkle (or was it Underdog)?

David Brauer
Kingfield
Non-smoking Boomer