Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

This morning the Minnesota legislature is suppose to vote weather to pass this bill. If passed it will be illegal to light up in ANY public building in Minnesota. ( meaning open to the public). The news this am is interviewing people as worker in a diner, etc . Mixed reviews. Already some cities have passed a smoking ban in public building witch will become active soon. Many are worried about their job security, if business goes somewhere else etc. I would think if it is state wide, it would be more fair. Not many are going to drive to Wisconsin or Iowa, or the Dakota's just to have a cigarette. What do you think? Donna G

Posted

I think, if it's a public building -- meaning paid for or controlled by public/taxpayer funds -- then if that's what the people of the state want, that's how it should be. If it's a privately owned business, however, I believe it should be up to the owner, with the proviso that prospective employees be warned and informed, and that warning notices are posted so that people know before going in that smoking is or isn't allowed.

The marketplace will decide ultimately.

Di

Posted

It has gotten cut to restaurants only so far, they are still working on it now in the house. Donna G

Posted

I disagree, Di. If smoking were outlawed in buildings that were paid for by taxpayers and smoking still allowed in privately-owned buildings, that's a mixed message. If the Government feels it important to not support smoking where they employ people, other employees should not have to spend time in an unsafe work environment.

Private industry has to go by OSHA regulations, EPA guidelines, etc. in this country. If pulmonary irritants, especially cigarette smoke, are not allowed around federal and state employees, why should the waitress being subjected to a less-than-minimum-wage job be exposed to them? Would all these private businesses that allow smoking have a waiver for employees to fill out that states the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, etc.? Oh heck, of COURSE it would, then the owner could side-step liability issues were some of the employees to sue!

Needs to be a blanket thing, not something that people choose for their business. After all, it's either harmful or it's not!

Becky

P.S. Sure wish this state were smoke-free.

(Editted for grammatical error.)

Posted

I work in a small business. We don't even have enough employees to be subject to most of the federal laws governing the work place. If we had a business where we allowed smoking, and we told prospective employees about that, and warned the public, then they would only be associated with us voluntarily. By choice. If people didn't want to come in, then we would probably take another look at our policy. No one has any inherent "right" to enter any and all places of business because they want to. There is no damage suffered by a person if they don't go into a particular restaurant to eat because they allow smoking, and go to another one where smoking isn't allowed. If a person decides to work in such an establishment having been informed up front that smoking is allowed, then that is their right.

Respectfully, Becky, because there are existing laws that regulate private business, that doesn't at all justify to me why there should be more. OSHA exists to minimize risks, not do away with them all. Otherwise, a human would not be allowed to set foot inside an auto manufacturing plant, because it is dangerous, and very risky work. Same with the mining industry. The point is to be aware of the risks and informed about them up front so that people can take reasonable and responsible precautions.

I'm no fan of smoking, but I'm a huge fan of individual liberties, and when things like this come up, I see them as just one more example of a democratic republic gone awry, whatever the issue. I can see it coming, however, and as good as it sounds to have a smoke free society, it's really quite sad to me, and makes me wonder which of our freedoms we will give away next.

I know this isn't the popular or PC view of this issue, but I'm not in favor of what some call a "nanny state" where we make bad choices individually and then ask the government to come in and fix things for us when they don't turn out like we want them to. I'm one of those people, but I recognize my own culpability in the matter, and there isn't a thing the government can do for me now, nor could they have stopped me from smoking all those years had I not wanted to stop myself.

Di

Posted
I'm no fan of smoking, but I'm a huge fan of individual liberties, and when things like this come up, I see them as just one more example of a democratic republic gone awry, whatever the issue. I can see it coming, however, and as good as it sounds to have a smoke free society, it's really quite sad to me, and makes me wonder which of our freedoms we will give away next.

Di,

It probably will not surprise you to learn that I work at a Fortune 500 company that has international ties and is #2 in its type. We dance the OSHA and EPA dance, we strive to improve and have lowered our incident rates significantly in the last few years - we also do not allow smoking on our properties.

I do not feel that smoking should be deemed an "individual liberty". As I recall, the Bill of Rights read, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" I don't recall reading anything about smoking being a "right". I believe one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. I have the right to LIFE. I shouldn't be subjected to smoking if I want to "pursue my happiness" and go out to eat. Ridiculous!

Also, those waitresses in the smoky bars do not work there because it is their choice of careers. I'm NOT saying one does not need skills to be a waitress, but the jobs held in smoky bars are not glamorous. By not regulating these places the employees who are at the low end of the economic spectrum are the ones taking it in the shorts. No health insurance and a risky workplace. I know that where I work, if air quality were as bad as in the local watering hole, the EPA would shut us down and there would be OSHA fines out the whazoo.

It seems that raising cigarette taxes, banning smoking on planes and all the "Don't smoke" campaigns in the world aimed at teenagers isn't working. Money made from those taxes is not spent toward a cure, it's just spent. Something needs to be done to stop the smoking epidemic. Merely taxing the cigarettes is not an answer, it's another government profit that is not accounted for. Conflict of interest, even?

My take. Opposite side of the coin.

Posted

And I don't think we disagree. The personal choice comes in when we make our own decisions -- not fettered by federal laws. Smoking, drinking, drinking and smoking too much, using power tools with no safety equipment, -- all risky, dangerous, but all perfectly legal inside one's home. None of which affect me when it isn't in my house.

I totally agree that children are at risk -- but they are also at risk from many things that exist out in the world, and making them all illegal doesn't protect them. Laws don't keep people "safe" unless every single person obeys them, and they don't. Parents can keep their children in close rein every minute until they are legal age, and then they can still choose to smoke or drink or drive like maniacs. I worry just as much what they will be doing to get their hands on cigarettes if they are made illegal, and they go underground to get their hands on them like they do now with their "designer" drugs. It doesn't mean don't have laws, but if the goals are clear, laws may not always be the best way to get to them.

I'll still regret the loss of liberty, and yes I think our choices -- good ones and bad ones -- are included in those. There are already moves being made to outlaw some foods, so that looks to be next. I guess this country will have to drink itself into oblivion before someone takes on the real killer in society -- alcohol abuse -- the sacred cow.

Di

Posted

I don't care who smokes when and where as long as no one else has to breathe their smoke. If they smoke in a public location, they are infringing upon other's freedoms and choices such as where to work, eat, and play. We don't restrict how much alcohol a person a can consume (personal freedom) but we do restrict that a person can't legally drive when they've had too much to drink (public safety). To me smoking is a similar situation.

No, the world will never be a totally safe place and free market should play a role.

Here's kinda a way out idea - how about businesses having to apply for and purchase "smoking licenses" like they have to purchase liquor licenses now. These smoking licenses could be prominently displayed at the front door. This might help level the playing field.

Posted
Here's kinda a way out idea - how about businesses having to apply for and purchase "smoking licenses" like they have to purchase liquor licenses now. These smoking licenses could be prominently displayed at the front door. This might help level the playing field.

Not a bad idea, actually. People should know -- no, they NEED to know where they might be exposed to cigarette smoke. Those fees could be paid into a fund and used to further the anti-smoking campaign, if the politicians can keep their hands out of it.

But, look at who is caught in the wide net of "banning" -- I won't look one of the West Texas farmers I know in the eye and tell him it's illegal for him to drag himself into his house at midnight, have a nip and a smoke, then fall into the bathtub and hope he stays awake long enough to make it into the bed, after working 15 hours in the blowing dirt, trying to make a go of it. What is the penalty imposed on him if someone happens to see him sneak a smoke behind his own barn? These people spend their lives clawing living out of some of the most unforgiving farm land in this entire country. I wouldn't have gone into the home of my old granny when, at age 79, she still enjoyed a puff now and then, and told her she was breaking the law.

It's one thing to think of this in terms of bars and restaurants in crowded cities. Quite another to think of it in terms of rural locations where lawmakers themselves seldom tread. We know what the goals are, the road getting to them is the rocky part.

You make good sense, IMO. I think there are many sensible things that communities and states can do short of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Di

Posted

I live in a rural area. I cannot patronize the local establishments as there really are no non-smoking areas. I live in one of the poorest counties in my state and work in one of the wealthier ones.

If someone wants to smoke in their own home, so be it...but don't expose children to the secondhand smoke, either.

...and my personal thoughts on cigarette money going to smoking cessation ads for high schoolers? Enough already, it's not working. Money to a CURE - tax money from cigarettes, settlements from the tobacco companies.

Posted
...and my personal thoughts on cigarette money going to smoking cessation ads for high schoolers? Enough already, it's not working. Money to a CURE - tax money from cigarettes, settlements from the tobacco companies.

Agreed on that. That was a HUGE loophole that states just walked right through.

When cigarette prices went up a few years ago on the back of some of the settlements, you could walk about a block or 2 from where I work (right in the middle of a large city) and buy a carton for $5. They came in from Mexico. If you bought a single pack this way, you'd often get them in a "real" package, as they would save them with the tax stamps. With a carton, you had to be more careful, I suppose, although there was (and still is) a thriving business. These people would like nothing better than for cigarettes and tobacco products to be banned in the U.S., because they will make their fortunes in the black market. I don't even want to know what they will do with a good bit of the money they make.

Every day, I walk to lunch and around downtown a bit for the "fresh air." I sometimes almost choke from the smoke put out by the city buses, and many of the cars. I used to think when I was smoking that there weren't very many of us left, and now I seem to notice a LOT of people walking around smoking. I just want to strangle them, and tell them to STOP NOW -- LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO ME FROM THOSE THINGS!! They would probably react like I would have -- hopefully, just walking right on by and ignoring me, rather than smacking me upside the head!

What I want most is for them to stop, and for them to keep their children from smoking as long as possible. What I don't want is to have the government fall heavily on their heads on my behalf in a misguided attempt to force that to happen.

Di

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

For those who care, and those following Minnesota news.

ST. PAUL (AP) - A House committee has signed off on legislation that would increase Minnesota's cigarette tax 99 cents a pack.The bill also would cut three health-care taxes for small businesses.

The House Health Policy and Finance Committee sent the bill on to another committee.

Supporters say the proposal would deter 60,000 youth from smoking and more fairly spread the costs of insuring high-risk patients.

The bill would increase the cigarette tax from 48 cents to a $1.47 per pack. The money would be used to eliminate an assessment for the Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association (MCHA) and two health care premium taxes.

MCHA insures patients who have been turned down by other insurers because of pre-existing conditions.

Blue Cross Blue Shield has been promoting the proposal since December, and held a news conference Monday which was meant as a broad-based show of force.

The Minnesota chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which takes a dim view of tax increases, also supports the cigarette tax increase.

Minnesota's current cigarette tax is 37th in the country and lower than most surrounding states. The 99 cent increase would make Minnesota the ninth-highest.

Governor Pawlenty has said he's open to raising the cigarette tax as long as it's "revenue neutral," meaning another tax is cut or eliminated at the same time.

Posted

EDITORIAL: Pass Smokefree Workplace Legislation

The health argument is carrying the day because it's valid

Parts excerpted from the Forum, 2/24/05

Minnesota, 2/24/05-- Some sort of statewide smokefree workplace legislation likely will clear the Minnesota Legislature in the next few weeks. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said he will sign it.

Minnesota has moved the debate about smoking and secondhand smoke out of the realm of alleged negative impacts on business to the unassailable certainty of the detrimental effects of smoking on human health. The health argument is carrying the day in large part because it's valid. The business harm argument is going the way of the dinosaur because local smokefree workplace laws have demonstrated that negative impacts on the overall business climate are negligible; in some cases, there is evidence the effect is positive.

As sure as smoke and mirrors are endemic to the legislative process, the regular cast of tobacco interests are trying mightily to preserve some nonexistent right to poison the air others breathe. Hospitality industry lobbyists and anti-regulation ideologues have raised the same tired objections about the rights of private business to do whatever they please on their property. Or they have tried to undermine the science about the hazards of environmental smoke.

None of those approaches carries much weight anymore. They are as transparent and wispy as, well, smoke.

No final smokefree workplace bill is ready for debate yet. The Senate's version is tougher and more comprehensive than the House bill. But this much is certain: Minnesota lawmakers, responding to overwhelming clean air sentiment among their constituents, will clear the indoor air in most workplaces.

Seven states-- CA, DE, NY, CT, ME, MA and RI-- require all workplaces, including restaurants and bars/nightclubs, to be smokefree. Four additional states-- FL, VT, UT, and ID-- require all restaurants to be smokefree, but exempt bars/nightclubs.

To win smokefree air where YOU live, go to http://www.smokefree.net/alerts.php

Joseph W. Cherner

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the

world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.