Posted on 05/17/2007 4:47:06 PM PDT by Wheee The People
Editorial: Smoking ban proves Legislature can get things done 5/17/2007 8:56:33 AM ...
The hope comes in the form of the "Freedom to Breathe Act," which Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed on Wednesday.
The act, which will take effect on Oct. 1, bans smoking in virtually all bars and restaurants in the state. A statewide smoking ban was proposed in previous legislative sessions, but the bills died amid the partisan rancor that has beset the Legislature through the 2000s.
This year, however, nearly equal numbers of Republican and DFL lawmakers joined together to pass the statewide smoking ban by comfortable margins in both the Senate and the House.
We stated in a previous editorial that the smoking ban issue is one that is best addressed at the statewide level. Many cities and counties, including Olmsted, have enacted their own smoking bans over the last decade. But those local ordinances create an unequal playing field for bar and restaurant owners who fear they'll lose business to nearby communities. The statewide bill goes a long way toward leveling the playing field.
We are empathetic to business owners who still believe they'll lose customers as a result of the statewide ban. However, the Oct. 1 implementation date, which was moved back from the bill's original Aug. 1 compliance deadline, should give business owners and their patrons time to plan ahead. Who knows? Maybe some customers will use the next four and a half months to complete smoking cessation programs, or cut back on their tobacco use.
We also empathize with those who argue that the government has no business telling restaurant and tavern proprietors what to do.
After all, no one is forcing individuals to frequent bars or restaurants that permit smoking, and there are plenty of smoke-free dining and entertainment options out there.
The law isn't perfect. There are still concerns that bars and restaurants near Indian gaming casinos, which are exempt from the new law because they're under federal jurisdiction, might be at a competitive disadvantage.
The same holds true for establishments in border communities such as Moorhead.
Only the enactment of a national smoking ban would completely level the playing field. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, a Minnesota ban makes good sense in a state that has for decades been a leader in the protection of public health.
I just got finished browsing your freeper page. I see you are a Naval Academy grad. I have a nephew there finishing his second year now. I have another nephew grunting in the Marines, now deployed to Iraq.
On the smoking issue, let me refine my statement a bit. I don’t disagree that the non-smokers you describe hope to change behavior so that there are no non-smokers left. Actually I don’t disagree with their goal, only some of their attempted means to reach it. But I disagree that health is their major concern. I respectfully suggest that their true motivation in seeking an end to “smoking in our time” is to avoid being exposed to cigarette smoke themselves. (There may be also a desire simply to control others’ behavior, but I don’ think that is true for all anti-smokers. If it were a pure health issue I would think that more dangerous behaviors (e.g., drinking, drinking and driving) would have been targeted first.
In any event, as a non-smoker, I oppose the restrictions they seek, even though my life would be marginally more comfortable if they were successful.
I didn’t graduate from the Naval Academy. I don’t have that kind of discipline :-) You’re missing the joke.
The point was that if our government agencies can lie and make up stuff about SHS or any number of other things, why can’t we. I also didn’t win a Nobel Prize.
What?! No Naval Academy? No Nobel Prize? (I missed that part) Why should I believe you at all? (j/k).
Take care.
In a way FRiend, you put my mind at ease a little bit. I knew it was impossible for somebody to read the entire page from the anti-tobacco playbook and not see how “mandate clean indoor air” wasn’t in fact designed to reduce smoking rates by kicking smokers out of their favorite establishments and coercing them to quit.
Now I know that you do what I and everyone else does far too often. Read a little bit of something and then draw conclusions based on my preconceived notions.
We’re only human. Seriously, think about what you read in the ASSIST Study from 93 and get back to me some other time.
Peace.
BTW I also didn’t serve as a Rear Admiral in Vietnam. I was only 7 years old when the war ended. And I’ve never met Al Gore and I didn’t invent the internet with him. :-)
Take Care.
Appalud the erosion of liberty, by favoring one class over another? SHS smoke is a myth, the studies were rigged, and the numbers fudged. Running rough-shod over one group of people to promote a special consideration for another group will come back to bite you. Smokers are people too, and we’re getting tired of being treated this way.
You’re no conservative!
I have no problem reducing smoking rates. Zero. In fact I hope smoking is reduced significantly and smokers are marginalized. Just like I want to see abortions, illiteracy, gay marriage, welfare and other blights on our society reduced. Sue me and other social conservatives.
You’re not a “social conservative,” your’re a “social control-freak.” Jesus Christ never, never, never wanted to control people the way you do, but the NAZIs, etc., did. I’m hoping that you won’t have to learn this lesson the hard way. May HE have pity on your sad soul. Oh, by the way, remember that you can’t vote for Fred, because he smokes cigars.
Oh, and I also saw your hero, Fred, in the movie “Hunt for Red October” smoking a cigarette! You should watch it — it’s one of my favorite movies.
There is a HUGE difference between a private corporation choosing to ban smoking at thier facilities, and the government forcing a smoking ban on private companies.
Too bad you can’t see that.
BTW, I applaud Disney for thier decision, because I am a non-smoker. But I decry the government for theirs because I am a proponent of small government.
Social conservative applaud telling private business owners they can not allow a legal activity on their premises?
Oh, and another thing, Wheee, I’m backing Mitt Romney; he doesn’t smoke (unlike your hero Fred Thompson) nor does he view people/society the way that you do — he respects everyone and respects freedom, and it shows. He’s a happy and successful person because he sees the good in society, not the bad as you do.
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberalsif we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I cant say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we dont each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path".
--Ronald Reagan
"Government is not the solution to the problem, Government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan
"The Government that is big enough to give you everything you need, is also big enough to take away everything you have." -- Barry Goldwater
"Whatever...The social conservative wing of the Republican party is a major branch of the right and indeed some of the views are at odds with the libertarian wing. However, its clear conservative voters go to the polls and vote for smoking bans.-- Wheee The Sheeple
Our First Lady smokes as well. Do you hate her too???
Wheee, please vote for me -- I detest smoking just like you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.