Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 30 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Smoking ban a month away
Published 12:00 p.m., August 29, 2007
In 1975, Minnesota became the first state in the nation to pass legislation limiting smoking in the workplace. The historic Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA) regulated most workplaces, with the notable exception of the hospitality industry. On Oct. 1, a statewide smoking ban goes into effect as part of new provisions to the MCIAA signed into law by Gov. Tim Pawlenty May 16.
The Freedom to Breathe Act provisions are designed to protect employees and the public from the health hazards of secondhand smoke. The Minnesota Department of Health together with local public health departments are working with communities and businesses to successfully become smoke-free.
“What we want people to know is the Freedom to Breathe Act is a long time coming.” Otter Tail County Public Health Director Diane Thorson said. “Minnesota went from being a leader in the nation in 1975 to fall to the twentieth state to finally pass a comprehensive Clean Indoor Air Act.”
By the time of the Clean Air Act, science had established the hazards of direct smoking, but there had been less research on the health impacts of exposure to secondhand smoke. In 1986, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop issued the first-ever Surgeon General's Report on secondhand smoke, which reviewed all available scientific evidence and concluded that exposure to secondhand smoke causes serious diseases, including lung cancer, in nonsmokers.
In 1989, Congress voted to prohibit smoking on all domestic airlines, and in 1994 California became the first state to enact a smoke-free law applying to most workplaces, including restaurants. In 1998, that law was expanded to include bars.
Many cities and counties in Minnesota have adopted smoke-free policies in the past five years, but the state legislature held off. Meanwhile, across the country, 16 other states and the District of Columbia passed smoke-free laws that covered all workplaces.
The Minnesota bill went through 19 committee hearings or floor debates, and over 100 amendments were introduced. After months of debate, a conference committee report preserving the spirit of the original bill was passed by the Senate on May 11 and the House on May 12. It went from a heavily debated bill to an accepted law overnight. Governor Tim Pawlenty signed the bill at a public ceremony making Minnesota the twentieth state to pass comprehensive smoke-free legislation. Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, New Hampshire and New Mexico also approved strong smoke-free laws this year, bringing the grand total to 22.
A state grant for Otter Tail County of $6,000 has been received to assist the Public Health Department getting the word out on changes caused by the Freedom to Breathe Act, including packets for food, beverage and lodging facilities, including signage to put on doors and all entry points. The signage will be needed for proper enforcement.
“Enforcement issues are pretty much done in accordance with the Clean Indoor Act,” Thorson said.
Included in the information is the description that anyone not complying with the new law, after being asked by an establishment’s manager to leave the premises, will be charged with disorderly conduct.
“It should be self-regulatory by the end of October,” she said.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post. To post a comment you will need to register. Or, if you're already registered but have not included your true, verifiable identity with your registration, you will need to update your account to include your identity. Effective Dec. 1, 2009, all posts appear with the commenter's true identity, which must be verified by site staff. Those who registered prior to Dec. 1, 2009, should be aware that once you update your information with your true identity, all prior posts under your user name will also indicate your true identity. If you do not wish to link yourself to prior comments, you should register again with a different user name.Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on August 29, 2007 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, the smoke nazis finally got their way, but don't think that they are finished trying to run your life. Remember how all this started "we just want a corner of the cafe so we can eat without all that filthy smoke in our face". They got their corner, then it was "we just want one room so we can eat without all that filthy smoke in our face". They got their room then they wanted the entire restraunt which they will get in one month. Just wait their next complaint will be...Those nasty smokers are smoking outside the restranut and we have to walk next to their filthy smoke before we eat. After a few years of crying about that some gutless politician will grant their latest wish and then it will be on to banning smoking in your own home and car. God knows they might drive by your house and see you smoking inside and that would upset their stomach so they could not eat in the smoke free restraunts. Lets just admit that there is an entire class of people who just can not stand the fact that someone somewhere is enjoying a cigarette or anything else for that matter. You blue haired old ladies who use to much perfume better not laugh you may be their next target. If any smoke nazis ever make to heaven I hope St. Peter greets then at the pearly gate smoking a cigarette or if its hell I know the devil smokes. What am I saying, a smoke nazi would never go to hell they are to good.
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on August 29, 2007 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I forgot to say when I typed my last comment I WAS SMOKING A CIGARETTE. Ha.
Posted by woundedduck (anonymous) on August 29, 2007 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If we're such Nazi's maybe you should consider liberating yourselves. Move to Angle Inlet. Secede from the state with the rest of the "free-thinkers", and have your own little smoking commune. Camel Joe can be your national mascot and the Marlboro Man can be your President. Oh yah, he's dead. Cancer wasn't it?
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on August 29, 2007 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Again with the move out if you don't agree.
Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on August 29, 2007 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Look out Big Mac and Whopper, the smoke nazi's are also the food nazi's and they are coming for you. "
Not likely - when you eat a Big Mac, I don't get fatter.
There's a difference between personal freedom and public health - smoke as much as you want in your own house...pollute your own lungs, but please, leave mine alone...
Posted by kingdanno (anonymous) on August 29, 2007 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We should still have a place to go to smoke ... It'll be like the opium dens of China ... We'll have a big Pooka bong filled with tobacco in the center ... Hundreds will be waiting in line for their daily inhale of Virginia tobacco. Of course, we'll have to sign documents before we enter, acknowledging that any escaped smoke may open us up to liability ... furthermore, if we leave the tobacco den smelling of smoke and offend anyone, they have the right to charge us with Disorderly Conduct. Great idea!
Posted by HotFergusMan (anonymous) on August 29, 2007 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reading all these great points has stressed me out... I think I need a cigerette.
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on August 29, 2007 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh goodie, some wise words from that right wing song bird from Florida, you know that one who can't find the right to privacy in the constitution but somehow found the "Right To Breathe". Tell us oh high dittohead which admendment is that. While you are looking that up, tell us where you pulled the 98% figure from, I have an idea where you pulled it from, but I will wait for the official word from you. (and don't quote the American Cancer socity because they say they don't know what causes over 50% of cancer deaths in America) I think acting like a conservative around a child is child abuse. One last thing Jerry, the next time you leave the Viking Cafe (smoking or not) I suspect you will still stink. Please save your precious breathe and keystrokes I know I'm getting personnel but you see I have a drug problem.
Posted by Brandon (anonymous) on August 30, 2007 at 1:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I find it very sad that you must make personal attacks at people to *try* and get your point across. I think that this smoking ban is a great idea. It sickens me to think that anybody would be stupid enough to put all these things from the cigarettes into their bodies. Like Jerry said, those who smoke are drug addicts. No better than those who smoke pot, do herione, smoke meth, etc. So, next time you pick up a cigarette to take a drag, think of how you are killing yourself, others around you, and also think of how stupid smoking is.
~!Brandon
Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on August 30, 2007 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
First, thanks for reading the article and I appreciate your comments, even the ones from the non-smokers. :)
If you guys really want to get worked up or cheer enthusiastically, depending on which side you're on, check out my blog post on the same topic:
http://www.fergusfallsjournal.com/blogs/...
You can also get there by clicking my blog link on the front page.
Enjoy! and happy bantering.
Posted by fergus (anonymous) on August 30, 2007 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you want to wreck your body with cigarettes, knock yourself out. I do not care. It's another thing when your addiction jeopardizes the health of those around you.
It's a health issue, plain and simple. The argument of "They're taking away my freedom! Wahhhhh!" is a giant load of crap. The vast majority of American citizens recognize this simple fact. It's the vocal minority of cigarette addicts that refuse to admit the health hazard their nasty habit poses to the rest of us.
Posted by woundedduck (anonymous) on August 30, 2007 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Where will it all end?" Classic defense, thanks markc. You smokers are defending smoking as though it is a harmless, whimsical pastime. markc just noted, referring to the ban, "its going to go on to your car and your home." That is exactly where it should go. Consider this little gem we've all witnessed, the 6 month old asthmatic child strapped into a car seat, with Mr. and Mrs. Virginia Slim in the front seat smoking away. If it is all about civil liberties, where is that child's right to not participate in that sadistic little morning ritual. You can bet we're coming for the cars.
Posted by Venti (anonymous) on August 30, 2007 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This whole issue is absolutely hilarious! The smokers defend smoking as a "freedom" and claim that people who are for the ban are anti-freedom or anti-american and even go to the extent of calling the proponents of this ban "nazis." Wow. Melodramatic much? I'm "pro-freedom," "pro-american" and "anti-nazi," but my support of my personal freedom subsides when those freedoms entail harming another individual. For example, do I support my right to go outside and stand 5 feet away from a cement wall and fire my shotgun into it? Yes. I have the freedom and yes, the right to own a shot gun and shoot it, even though there are many potential dangers to myself by firing a shotgun at a cement wall at such a close distance, I am free to do it because, in part, it is myself I am placing at risk. But do I support my freedom or right to go up to that same cement wall and fire my shotgun at it while there are 20 other people standing 5 feet away from that wall? No. Sure, I could say, "but I'm only shooting my gun (which I lawfully own) at this cement wall (which I can legally do)." But what I'm neglecting to acknowledge is the fact that by doing this, I'm placing a great number of people at risk of great bodily harm. People who refuse to acknowledge the fact that there is also great bodily harm inherant in inhaling large quantities of second-hand smoke, do so because they do not want to acknowledge it and never will. And though they may never be forced to acknowledge the hazards of smoking, they are now being forced to acknowledge that the societal attitudes towards smoking is drastically changing. This is where the anger, the personal attacks and the "our freedoms are being violated" attitudes come from. Smokers feel as though they are being disenfranchised by a society who previously so lovingly embraced their disgusting habits and supported their demand to have the freedom to kill waitresses, co-workers, even your random neighbor on the bus or plane ride. They're like the Sunni's but without the car bombs. Oh well, I guess they'll just have to learn to deal with change.
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on August 30, 2007 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes Jerry chipmunks are notorious misspellers,it's because we are so short we could not see the blackboard in school. I wonder which is worse a misspelled word or fabricated percentage. Then there is Venti who bemones my use of the word "Smoke Nazi" when refering to rabid anti smokers, but calls us freedom loving smokers "Sunni's" without car bombs.
What you smoke nazis refuse to understand is that we smokers would not begrudge you nazis your own smoke free area, but that's not good enough for you. You want every chair and every booth in every room in every cafe in every town in every state for nonsmokers, even if the cafe sits empty awaiting your glorious arrival. By the way Venti, when you are shooting at that cement wall are those boobs standing next to you there of their own free will or did you force them to stand next to you?
Posted by Venti (anonymous) on August 30, 2007 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Rescue Ranger:
They are there, of course, by their own free will. It's a public place and they have a right to be there without the risk of being put in harms way by my actions. It is I who do not have the right (nor the freedom) to place their well-being at risk by shooting my shotgun in a direction that I know or have a reason to believe may cause bodily harm to them. (BTW, it's also goose season, so I can legally shoot my shotgun on public lands;)
Sure, non-smokers are not forced to go to these restaurants or bars where smokers are doing what they do best (smoking). They go there by their own free will, just as you do. It's a public place and both have a right to be there. However, they both do not have the right to take any action that they want while in that public place, especially not if that action involves harming or putting another person at risk of harm or personal injury. You see, the difference is that the non-smokers presence at a bar is not harming the smokers or causing the smokers to be at risk of being harmed. Conversely, someone smoking at a bar or restaurant in the presence of non-smokers (whether they be other patrons or staff member) is in fact, if not directly harming, at least causing the them to be at a much higher risk of harm or future physical injury.
In case you don't like the VA info that Jerry provided, here's some FACTS about secondhand smoke from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statisti...
But like I said, people who refuse to accept FACTS will simply choose to continue to do the same. For some reason, FACTS don't seem to be very persuasive to people who do not believe in FACTS. Go figure.
Oh the times they are a changin'...
Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on August 30, 2007 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Unfortunately, most of these die hard smoker's can never understand what it's like for non-smokers to have to deal with their second hand smoke. They'll probably never understand a person who can't enter a restaurant that has a "smoke free" zone, because she has emphysema - unless she wants to eat at McDonalds (which is a pretty terrible option, but that's a whole 'nuther article).
The smokers like to whine about "personal freedom" while ignoring the personal freedoms of others. Nobody complained when these same restaurants in question had to comply with the various health codes they're currently required to comply with....and why? Because it's a matter of public health. This new regulation is nothing more than an extension of that...why did we have to start regulating the cleanliness of the establishments to begin with? Probably because they owners refused to do it on their own.
And for those alarmists who are concerned that we'll start regulating whether they smoke in the privacy of their own home?...FYI - nobody followed the cooks and chefs back to their houses and started regulating their home kitchens...why? Because it's no longer a public health issue.
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on August 30, 2007 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This has all been fun and interesting but I have to go buy a pack of Marlboro's. Perhaps some day we can all get together in a small room and you nazis can watch me kill myself with cigaretts...stand closer...closer
Posted by freedomofchoice (anonymous) on August 30, 2007 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I feel sorry for the businesses that have to enforce this new law. To me it should be up to the business owner if that smoking or non smoking. Why leave it up to the pawlenty to tell the businesses what they can and can not due. What is the effects of the revenue that these business will be losing.
Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on August 30, 2007 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
None.
Since Hennepin County went smoke free, the data suggests that on the whole, bars and restaurants saw an increase in business....
Posted by Kurtisishere (anonymous) on August 30, 2007 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm a smoker that does not have a problem if I can't smoke in a restaraunt or bar. I have no problem going outside. Sometimes it's nice to NOT smell like smoke. I don't smoke in my house, because it stinks, but you can bet that if I'm allowed to smoke in a bar, I'm gonna fire it up and stink up the place. If you really want to get rid of the smoking problem, tax the cigarette companies until selling tobacco is no longer profitable for them. At the same time, if you want help to make sure that you will be allowed to continue on with your "freedoms", enlist the tobacco companies' help in fighting off the public health group that opposes your right to smoke. The tobacco comanies will be glad to part with the money that you pay them, to help fight for your cause, wont they?
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on August 30, 2007 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm back, puff, does anyone, puff, puff, else think, puff, that Kurtsishere is puff, not really, puff. puff, a smoker, but rather a puff, spy for the puff, puff, nazis?
Posted by Venti (anonymous) on August 31, 2007 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love the things that get said when someone realizes that the FACTS (and reality as a whole) do not support their point of view.
Not too keen on sticking to FACTS are you chip'n'dale?
*cough, cough*
Posted by Venti (anonymous) on August 31, 2007 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"And Venti, at least you have the guts to admit this insanity is heading to our cars and homes."
Come again? Better double-check your sources on that one.
"if you come to my home, and try to tell me what I can do in my own home,you better bring that shotgun of yours."
Are you actually threatening me for a statement I didn't even make? Wow. Are you sure tabacco is the only drug you're addicted to? I've heard of another one that's pretty popular these days that makes people paranoid about others coming to their homes. Or perhaps tabacco is more harmful than any of us will ever know...
"Come gather 'round people, wherever you roam
and admit that the waters around you have grown
and accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you is worth savin',
then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone"
Everybody now!
FOR THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN'
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on August 31, 2007 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have been hiding out this morning, trying to avoid the process servers. I guess I'm getting sued. I suppose I will have to quit smoking, since I won't be able to afford cigaretts. It all started late yesterday afternoon, I was driving my roller skate to the N.P. Park to pick up some acorns. I admit I was speeding and smoking at the same time, anyway, as I sped down the hill on Vernon Avenue the wind blew the ash off the end of my cigarette and my fur caught fire just as I passed a family of Mice on the corner by the Hospital. Apparently, a chunk of my burning fur fell off and landed on one of mice, now they are sueing me for second hand fur.
Posted by Venti (anonymous) on August 31, 2007 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've done my case making. I think I'll let it rest now.
Neither of you have refuted anything I wrote yesterday. You simply attempt to intimidate while chipmunk attempts to be humorous. Talk about great arguments.
The points I made yesterday were and are the crux of my argument. People smoking in an enclosed public area causes the people around them to be at higher risk levels of lung cancer, heart disease and heart attacks (to name a few). It knowingly puts people at much higher risk levels of great, if not life-threatening, bodily harm. You do not have the right, nor the freedom, to do this. Not anymore anyway. I wouldn't shoot my shotgun at a cement wall if you were standing next to it. I would expect you to do the same for me.
Have a good one fellas! Enjoy the long weekend. Don't go killin' anyone! ; )
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on August 31, 2007 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So, what have we learned here? Let's review. Smokers are wonderful people who like animals and want to live and let live. Smoke nazis don't like threats unless they make them, and they don't know funny when they read it, and as any waitress will tell you they are cheap tippers.
Posted by fergus (anonymous) on August 31, 2007 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't care about the "smoke nazi" name slinging or the ridiculous arguments "they're going to follow you home!". In the end, I get to enjoy a smoke-free environment.
Suck on that.
Posted by mermaid (anonymous) on September 1, 2007 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe that all chipmunks have the right to do as they please, but would they put a cigarette to their tiny lips? I think not! I think CHIPMUNK needs to get a touch of reality and just because he did not get what he wanted it appears CHIPMUNK is lashing out at those who did!!!! HA HA Chipmunk!!! Now go scurry back to your hole and cry to your mommy.
Chipmunk needs to quit smoking...maybe try one of those quick quit programs, or herbal medicines, or even acupuncture??? Just wait Chippy your pack o' smokes will be $10 bucks and $8 bucks of that will be going to the state!!! ha ha...but by all means Chippy smoke 'em if you got 'em!!
I hope your Urn will be filled with not only your ashes but with a "butt" load (get it...butt??) of cigarette ash!!
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on September 1, 2007 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My, My, mermaid, you sure are a quick wit. I must have touched a nerve for you to whine about me personaly in two articles and not say a single word about the subject of the original article. Had you bothered to read all my posts you would have seen that I already apoligized for my spelling and the reason. But never the less thanks for pointing out one of my many faults, I really feel chastized now, what a bad chipmunk I have been to disagree with the politicaly correct way of thinking about LRH and smoking. Since you don't smoke and have so much time on your fishy little fins
perhaps you could provide a valuable public service for all citizens of Fergus Falls, like standing on a street corner on Lincoln avenue and as smokers and other sinners pass you could point out their faults and suggest self help programs that would eventually make them a perfect person like you. If they argued with you, or expressed and opinion, you could tell them to move out of Fergus, or wound them to their very core with such witticisms as "scurry back to your hole". Lastly (for now) you are right, Chipmunks don't really smoke, you see mermaid, I was just using the chipmunk character to make a point, which was apparently lost on you if you believe a chipmunk would "put a cigarette to their tiny lips", perhaps it is you who needs a dose of reality.
Posted by KINGLIZ (anonymous) on January 2, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
THEY SHOULD HAVE PLACES FOR ALL TYPES OF PEOPLE. SMOKERS AND NON-SMOKERS.NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO INFRINGE ON ANYONES RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY WISH.
PEOPLE HAVE SAID GO AFTER THE CIGARETTE INDUSTRY FOR MAKING AN UNSAFE PRODUCT. THEY STOPPED THE USE OF DDT FOR GARDENING YEARS AGO. WHY NOT SMOKING IF IT IS SO DANGEROUS? MY THOUGHT IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A PLACE FOR ALL PEOPLE TO ENJOY LIFE. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS IN THIS WORLD THAT WILL KILL YOU, NOT JUST SMOKING.
LET'S HAVE SMOKING PLACES AND NON-SMOKING PLACES. YOU AT LEAST HAVE A CHOICE AS TO WHICH ONE YOU WANT TO GO TO.
THEY SAY THERE ISN'T AN ECONOMIC EFFECT ON BUSINESSES. WHEN FLOIRDA PASSED THE LAW 33% OF THEIR BAR BUSINESSES CLOSED DUE TO LACK OF CUSTOMERS.
WE HAVE A NON-SMOKING BAR & RESTAURANT IN ROCK ISLAND, IL CALLED 3RD & 22 THAT OPENED AS SMOKE FREE. IT HAS HAD 3 OWNERS SINCE THE DAY IT OPENED AND NONE OF THEM HAS HAD ANY SUCCESS. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS RIGHT EITHER.
A BAR OWNER IN MOLINE, IL SAID TODAY THAT THE CITY WILL BE ISSUING A LICENSE FOR ESTABLISHMENTS TO SMOKE. WHAT KIND OF A RIP OFF IS THIS?
I SMOKE AND I ENJOY IT. I ALSO GO TO NON-SMOKING PLACE AND REFRAIN FROM SMOKING WHILE I AM THERE. A PERSON SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE AND BUSINESS OWNERS SHOULD ALSO HAVE A CHOICE.
YOU WOULDN'T GO INTO SOME PARTS OF CITIES BECAUSE OF THE DANGERS AND IT DOESN'T CHANGE JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO PASS A LAW.
LET'S GET ALONG IN THIS LIFE. IT IS WAY TOO SHORT!!
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)
You may also register to comment in our forums at www.fergusfeedback.com.