• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

Pawlenty signs state smoking ban

amadeus

Bishop of Bio-Dome
Joined
Aug 30, 2001
Messages
40,022
Location
Weasel City
essay2.jpg


WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

From KARE-TV:

KARE-TV said:
Pawlenty signs smoking ban legislation

Minnesota's long march to a public smoking ban finally reached an end Wednesday, outside a restaurant, right where smokers will have to take their habit starting this fall.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed the so-called "Freedom to Breathe Act" that had been a top priority of antismoking advocates for years, making Minnesota the 20th state to ban smoking in bars and restaurants.

"We will look back on this legislation 10 years from now and say, `Of course -- we should have done it sooner,"' said Pawlenty. He called it "a proud and good day for Minnesota."

Smoking will become illegal in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, VFWs, American Legions, country club lounges and other establishments as of Oct. 1. The ban also covers public buses, trains, taxis, limousines and transit shelters and terminals.

Minnesota led the nation with its 1975 Clean Indoor Air Act, which limited public smoking to designated areas. The push for a statewide smoking ban goes back to 2000, when Moose Lake became the first Minnesota city to adopt a local ban. Seven counties and 10 cities followed.

The Republican governor predicted that the statewide ban would bring "tremendous health benefits," even though critics have said it will hurt taverns and establishments that sit near Minnesota's borders and Indian casinos, where the state law won't apply.

Naysayers were nowhere to be found at Granite City Food & Brewery, a clean, modern restaurant where smoking will still be allowed at the bar for another 4 1/2 months. CEO Steve Wagenheim said dealing with various smoking regulations at the chain's 18 Midwestern locations is a headache, and most customers are happy to eat in a smoke-free environment.

"This county-by-county smoking ban was ridiculous," Wagenheim said.

The president of the Minnesota Medical Association, Dr. G. Richard Geier, said in a statement that the ban was the most important step for public health in more than 30 years.

But Jim Farrell, head of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association, said health advocates went overboard and will end up putting some bars out of business -- particularly in counties poised to adopt or implement strict outdoor smoking regulations.

"It went from being about health to just being mean and sticking it to bars," Farrell said.

Outdoor smoking is still permitted under the statewide smoking ban, unless local ordinances restrict it. Smoking is also allowed in private homes and vehicles, hotel and motel rooms, truck cabs, farm vehicles and buildings, locked psychiatric wards, tobacco shops, Indian ceremonies and on stage for actors performing in plays.

Violations will carry fines of up to $300 for smokers and proprietors who knowingly allow smoking at their establishments. Most of the enforcement will fall to proprietors, who will be required to ask patrons to stop smoking and ask them to leave if they don't.

Local governments are still free to pass stricter anti-smoking ordinances.
The reference to 1984 is of course due to the Orwellian name of this legislation, as it calls itself the "Freedom to Breathe Act" while at the same time, squashing individual property rights. This is what our government thinks of us: that we can't think for ourselves. :mad:
 
Excellent. This is good news.
 
Eliminating private property rights is good news? I'm sure the politburo can squeeze you in for their next party congress.

I don't think cigarette smoke counts as private property.
 
They banned nationwide public smoking in New Zealand a few years ago.

It has yet to become an orwellian police state
 
Indeed it is good news. If the smokers need to smoke, then by all means. Just don't breathe it on me. It's not about property, it's about making others suffer so they don't have to go outside.
 
Eh, just as long as they replace the ashtrays with spitoons. I can chew or smoke. Heck, I can do both at once. :D

 
This is stupid, and people need to take responsibility for themselves. If the demand was really there for smoke free pubs, wouldn't some enterprising pub owner have declared his pub to be smoke free? That legislation was needed proves that it was pointless.
 
Eliminating private property rights is good news? I'm sure the politburo can squeeze you in for their next party congress.

How is fresh, clean air private property? Unlike land, air moves and moves lot. It is to the point that the whole world shares it. It is a public good, and thus is open to regulation by the government(s).

Even if it were private property, it doesn't mean people are allow to do with it as they please. A person smoking in the same room as me deprives me of my right, my freedom to fresh and clean air.

As for the 1984 comparison - can there be anything more overwrought?
 
There is nothing I hate more than walking by someone smoking and having it blown in my face, either intentionally or by the wind.
 
I don't think cigarette smoke counts as private property.
No, but the bar or restaurant does.

They banned nationwide public smoking in New Zealand a few years ago.

It has yet to become an orwellian police state
I'll leave this one for ainwood.

Indeed it is good news. If the smokers need to smoke, then by all means. Just don't breathe it on me. It's not about property, it's about making others suffer so they don't have to go outside.
It was your choice to enter that establishment, and it's also your choice to leave. I've been in smoky places before and didn't like it; do you know what I did? I left!
 
It's so freaky to have a thread where amadeus and Pasi are agreeing.
 
It's so freaky to have a thread where amadeus and Pasi are agreeing.

vice knows no political boundaries, and when you legislate it you make enemies of it's partakers.

of course, i think this ban is stupid.
 
To clarify my position. I support a public smoking ban, but I am against a ban that encroaches on private property.
 
It isn't the place of government to tell a business what kinds of clients they may accept?

Oh, they can come. They just can't smoke.
 
To clarify my position. I support a public smoking ban, but I am against a ban that encroaches on private property.

Aren't pubs private property? I mean, I'm all for state owned pubs (as long as they allow you to drink as much as you want and so forth), but to my knowledge there aren't any of those yet in Minnesota. Could a Minnesota resident please elaborate on this?
 
No, it may place regulations on what sort of behavior goes on in bars however.

You could always do what they did in New York. Open up a smokers bar, charge an extra 50 cents per drink. The 50 cents goes in the "smoking fund". Whenever the city hands you the innevitable fine, pay the bill out of the smokers fund. Then enjoy having the most dedicated Clientelle in the largest city in America.
 
Back
Top Bottom