The Fergus Falls Daily Journal

By Staff Reports

• Latest Stories

  • Field Supervisor
  • UND will use Fighting Sioux for time being
  • New owner to take over at FF Sears store
  • MN freed of No Child Left Behind
  • Curling club likely to start in November at fairgrounds arena

Smoking ban issues are complex

Published 12:00pm Saturday, March 17, 2007

The proposed statewide smoking ban, or Freedom to Breathe Act, authored by Rep. Thomas Huntley (DFL-Duluth) and Rep. Dan Severson (R-Sauk Rapids), has been a hot topic at the Capitol this session. Until now, smoking prohibition was a local government issue and had really only been addressed in Minnesota’s largest metro areas, like Minneapolis/ St. Paul, Mankato and Duluth.

Two fundamental viewpoints, limited government intrusion and promotion of public health, are behind the controversy surrounding the legislation.

There have been several studies and reports linking health problems to an exposure to secondhand smoke, especially to people working in the hospitality industry who are exposed to 4-6 times more secondhand smoke and 50 percent more likely to die from a smoking related disease.

The other side would argue that although government should always prioritize public health, at what cost to personal freedom, individual choice and basic private property rights?

As one of the first bills introduced, the bill has already had a number of committee hearings, each one amending the bill slightly. The bill was first introduced and heard in the House Health and Human Services Policy Committee where it was amended to exclude a section that would have left room for local governments to pass more stringent smoking ban ordinances than those that would be enacted by the statewide law.

The bill, as amended, was then heard in the Commerce and Labor Committee. In response to concerns from bar and restaurant owners that business would suffer because of the law, the Commerce and Labor Committee passed an amendment that added language to the bill exempting certain bar and restaurant establishments who voluntarily comply with the smoking ban from some liquor taxes. With this added incentive, the bill was passed out of committee and sent to Finance, the Health Care and Human Services Division, where it is now awaiting another hearing.

As the bill was initially introduced, and even in its current, third-draft form, it seems to be exhaustive in its definition of “public places” and “places of employment.” As is, one’s personal car and home can be considered a place of employment if it is used for business and at least one employee is present. The bill also deems private clubs, such as VFW’s, Legions, KC Halls and others, public places. Ironically, or maybe not so ironically, this smoking ban will apply to every business except for casinos in our state.

This has also brought into question whether the chief author is truly concerned about public health. Why would the legislation exclude reservation casinos? Rep. Steve Sviggum, former Speaker of the House, raised this concern back in January. In a letter circulated to newspapers around the state, he said, “The smoking ban represents one of the greatest hypocrisies I’ve ever seen in a proposed mandate. Minnesota tribes are among the largest campaign contributors to Democratic lawmakers and not surprisingly, tribal owned casinos are allowed to maintain their smoking privileges under this plan.”

With the committee process still incomplete and the Freedom to Breathe Act still being amended, I cannot make a final judgment yet as to whether or not I will be supporting this bill in a vote on the House floor.

There are a number of fundamental civil liberties and constitutional values, including personal freedom and right to a healthy work environment, tied up in this bill that cannot be taken lightly.

This proposal will need continued scrutiny.

I urge you to let me know what your opinion is regarding this proposal. What are your thoughts regarding the decision being made at the state level, rather than by local governments? What rights to private property owners have in this situation? How should we determine what establishments, if any, would be exempt from the ban? Please share your ideas and questions with me.

In order to make the democratic process even more “user friendly”, I now have a legislative “800” phone number, in addition to my St. Paul number, which I can still be reached at as well.

The new number, (800) 711-2620, allows you to reach me or my legislative assistant Anna directly, just the same as the St. Paul number does.

Rep. Westrom can be reached at the Capitol by calling 651-296-4929 or 800-711-2620, and by e-mail at rep.torrey.westrom@house.mn. His office is located at 273 State Office Building, 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155.