Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 7 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Smoking ban bill still needs work
Published Monday, April 23, 2007
There 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.
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. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by Gregory (anonymous) on April 23, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The best thing for everyones health and each businesses health - is to let each owner decide their policy and post it on the exterior of the building.
If you don't like smoke, don't enter a smoking permitted environment.
Simple and fair without stomping on everyones freedom to choose.
Freedom is not just the right ot do the smart or healthy thing. That kind of freedom is no freedom at all.
Posted by Maxie (anonymous) on April 23, 2007 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Gregory. If you don't like smoke, don't enter the smoking establishment. It's your choice. And there are plenty of choices all over the state, in every county. Buisness owners have voluntarily banned or allowed smoking as they see fit, as it should be.
Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on April 23, 2007 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh yes that is a real answer to the problem. Let the 75% of non-smokers stay out to the 25% of smokers can go in. How about, if the smokers don't like the non-smoking establishment, they can stay out. Smokers may as well admit it, smoking is a thing of the past and nothing but a legal drug habit, it has nothing to do with freedom, it has to do with common sense health issues for everyone.
Posted by Dubliner (anonymous) on April 24, 2007 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And people who work in such establishments can do what, exactly? Die of cancer because their employer has chosen to allow smoking?
Please, use some common sense before stating that the best thing for everyone's health and for each business is to let each individual business owner choose. Really? It's best for everyone's health? It's better for business? How??
Do you honestly think that smokers will just stop going out because they're not allowed to smoke inside a bar or restaurant? Many states and foreign countries have banned smoking in public places for years and guess what - people still go out.
Posted by JulieAnn (anonymous) on April 25, 2007 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think Jerry and Dubliner what some folks mean is that we the people and business owners are concerned about loosing our freedom to make some decisions we should make on our own. When will it end. If business owners are given the choice to have smokeing or not then we the people also keep our choice to go their and/or work their.
Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on April 26, 2007 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There are some people that need someone else to make decisions for them. Most of the people that smoke are the ones that can afford it the least. Ask yourself, why is it that the higher the education level of a person, the less likely they are to smoke.
Posted by JulieAnn (anonymous) on April 26, 2007 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think if business owners were convinced that making some changes will increase satisfaction and their checkbooks they would really want to please their patrons, 100% of the time. I am just saying lets do it that way instead of another Government law dictating. If we can't take care of some of these things on our own where will it end.
Does the smoking law really matter to you as much as smokers are getting there way and plus they are just uneducated and poor anyway? Shame on you seems your looking for a stage to shout from. Lets just be nice and think good of people and our business owners,they really will listen to their customers, guarenteed, because they are in business for profit!!
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)