Fair / 9° F
Smoking ban bill still needs work
Published 12:00pm Monday, April 23, 2007There is an adage that goes, a camel is a horse designed by committee. In the case of the smoking bill in the Minnesota House of Representatives, apparently legislators in the Finance Committee designed a Joe Camel.
They have amended the bill so that it is worse for businesses and not good for the health of Minnesota workers. How is that possible?
This is how: The bill would allow bars and restaurants to apply to municipalities — cities, counties, townships — for permission to have a smoking room. For each bar, that translates into the whole establishment. For restaurants, it would allow specific rooms for smoking.
Businesses have testified to legislators that they want a level playing field. Only a few vocal bar owners have been adamantly opposed to the smoking ban. Otherwise, the idea of smoking ban in workplaces has had little business opposition and plenty of family support. After all, Minnesota is known for being a healthy place to live, so most agree it’s about time.
The bill the Finance Committee crafted would result in an unfair patchwork of smoking locations. One town says yes. Another says no. It’s far from what businesses have sought.
And, of course, employees of restaurants and bars would continue to suffer the documented effects of secondhand smoke.
Furthermore, the language of the bill is so conflicting that it opens the state to lengthy and costly litigation.
Hopefully, stewards of the public’s interest in the House will straighten out this bill when it goes to the floor next week. Our suggestion is to look at the Senate’s version of the bill and shoot for that.
