On 5/22/04 10:43 AM, "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So that brings the question to my mind, if we choose to >> pursue a technical fix for the problem of secondhand smoke >> in the form of improving ventilation in our bars and restaurants, >> what do we do when the inevitable breakdowns occur? Because they >> will occur. > > It is unlikely that it would be any worse than it would > be now and far better than being stuck in an elevator. > If you wanted to be really Draconian about it, you could > require the business to close until the system was repaired, > on the other hand you could let people decide for themselves > if they wanted to stay or leave.
I apologize for not articulating my concerns more clearly in my earlier post. While part of my concern involved how customers might respond to the inevitable breakdowns, another concern is with how we would actually go about regulating air quality with regards to secondhand smoke. Someone would be needed to actually go around to respond to complaints and make sure that ventilation equipment is working. Since I would expect someone would have to be hired for this, my ballpark guess is that a person qualified to inspect HVAC equipment probably would run about $100K a year for salary, benefits and other costs. Presumably, this would be paid for through some kind of permit or license administration fee for bars/restaurants that choose to allow smoking. But considering the likely high capital costs of upgrading ventilation systems and/or renovating floor plans to enclose smoking areas, I have to wonder how many establishments would actually choose that option vs. going smoke-free like a lot of other buildings did, thanks to the Clean Indoor Air Act. Of course, any changes or additions to the licensing program will require changes and additions to the administration of this program, which means either modifying the existing licensing database or creating a separate one specifically for tracking compliance with the smoking regulations. Contrary to Bill Kahn's assertion that it would be "simpler, fairer, more effective, and cheaper" to change the way we license bars and restaurants than to implement a smoking ban on such establishments, this seems to me like an awful lot of crap to go through to ensure the "right" or "freedom" of smokers to keep poisoning themselves while protecting others from secondhand smoke. Suddenly, sending smokers outside doesn't seem so unreasonable, does it? However, while I cannot say I'm usually the biggest booster of The Pulse, I think Eddie Felien might actually be onto something here for why bar and restaurant owners might really be freaked out about this whole idea: Who's Winning the Tobacco Wars? http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1089 "There are strong incentives for bars and restaurants to support the tobacco industry. When we studied the tobacco influence carefully a few years ago, we found that tobacco companies were willing to pay $10,000 a year to bars popular with young people just to be allowed to put some of their signs up on the walls. ...The most insidious advertising were the newspaper bar ads sponsored by Camel or Marlboro. Bar owners didn�t pay anything to get featured in expensive ads that promoted their upcoming shows. It was all part of the package. Also part of the package was lobbying at the State Capitol. The hospitality industry lobbies for both liquor and tobacco, and the tab is picked up by the tobacco interests. It was a no-brainer for bar owners: cash for posters in the bar, special discounts on cartons, free advertising and high-powered lobbyists at the State Capitol. What�s not to like?" Hmm... Mark Snyder Windom 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
