People Ban: MN State Update Page 2

By Jonathan On Jul 5, 2017

State Alert

Read Newest Articles:? MN State Update Page 3

Smoking ban bill passes House, despite local legislative opposition
Star News – Elk River,MN,USA
Emmer attempted to amend the bill to allow businesses hurt by the smoking ban to take inverse condemnation actions against the state. …

Statewide smoking ban passes in House
Pioneer Press – St. Paul,MN,USA
After hours of passionate debate, the Minnesota House on Thursday passed a statewide smoking ban on an 85-45 vote. The measure would extend current …

Minnesota House backs smoking ban — with smoking rooms for bars
KARE – Minneapolis,MN,USA
A statewide smoking ban moved closer to reality Thursday when the Minnesota House voted to outlaw smoking in bars and restaurants starting in 2009. …

Smoking ban gets very little resistance in Minn. House
West Central Tribune – Willmar,MN,USA
PAUL — Local governments could allow smokers to light up in special rooms at bars under an exemption to a proposed statewide smoking ban the House passed …

House backs smoking ban
Winona Daily News – Winona,MN,USA
PAUL — A statewide smoking ban moved closer to reality Thursday when the Minnesota House voted to outlaw smoking in bars and restaurants starting in 2009. …

Ban may prohibit smoking inside farm buildings
The proposed statewide smoking ban being considered by the Minnesota Legislature could prohibit farm workers from smoking inside farm buildings.

April 17, 2007
The proposed statewide smoking ban being considered by the Minnesota Legislature could prohibit farm workers from smoking inside farm buildings.

House Minority Leader Marty Seifert and Rep. Torrey Westrom say they fear that farmers would have to enforce the smoking ban. The issue came up during a House committee hearing.

Westrom questioned whether the state wants government to be making such decisions for the farmers.

The bill’s author, Rep. Tom Huntley of Duluth, says he’s not sure the bill would affect farmers, but says the proposal is meant to protect the health of all workers.

The House Finance Committee sent the smoking ban to the full House, but some lawmakers say they’ll try to change it.

Statewide smoking ban bill clears another House committee, at least 2 more to go???
Monday, 02 April 2007?
by T.W. Budig, ECM capitol reporter
The statewide smoking ban bill cleared another House committee Monday (April 2), but with at least two more committees to go, it is unlikely to hit the House floor soon.
Indeed, even once there the travails of the controversial bill will not be over.
Supporters can expect a floor fight.
“I expect to have a pretty good time with it myself,” said Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, a smoking ban critic and chair of the House Higher Education and Work Force Development Policy and Finance Committee, whose committee the bill cleared on Monday.
One significant difference between the House bill and the Senate smoking ban bill recently passed is that the former contains a provision that would permit local government to issue a smoking license to bars.

Letters to the Editor for March 30, 2007

Anti-smoking fodder

To The Editor:

Re: Secondhand smoke Impact March 16, 2007 by Jeffery Herman.

There is no documented death of any citizen dying from exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke, in the world. For the writer to imply anything else is false and without fact, manufactured data to promote an anti-tobacco agenda at the cost of integrity and truth.

The second fabrication is 581 un-named and undocumented deaths in Minnesota, and even some from around here from exposure to second hand smoke. This is nothing but good anti-smoking fodder at the expense of legitimate science.

The third insult is the manufactured date churned out at John Hopkins University through a computer program that does not use human or financial study, then makes the statement that cost of secondhand smoke to the state of Minnesota is $215.7 million.

This was introduced by Marc Manley, the anti-smoking information minister from BCBS MN, that gave this fallacious information to a committee hearing that accept this junk science as fact without questioning the witness for a single fact.

The annually invited anti-smoking testifiers seem above reproach with their public “designer grants” (friends of the legislature).

April 30 of every year the Department of Human Services is mandated in statute 16A.725 to certify to the Commissioner of Finance the cost of smokers to the state. DHS Commissioner Kevin Goodno reported April 30, 2006 the “certified cost’’ was $294.3 million; secondhand smoke was not mentioned.

Reported costs by the public funded, non-profit, anti-smoking cartel range from Sen. Kathy Sheran $946 billion, Sen. Solon $2.66 billion and over. $200 billion from each of the non-profit anti-smoking legislators.

There are lies, damn lies and anti-smoking statistics.

Since there is no longer respect for truth or accuracy in the highly funded groups and the media that swears to their statements by not questioning the accuracy of their guesses I think I will count on the folks that read between the lines to give this letter a shot and take a look at the snake oil salesmen that think they are impressing you as citizens.

Archie Anderson
Coon Rapids

Liquor-tax break removed from smoking ban proposal
March 18, 2007
ST. PAUL — A House health spending panel approved a statewide smoking ban on Thursday after stripping out a liquor tax break for establishments that adopted the restrictions sooner.
The legislation would outlaw smoking in all bars, restaurants, private clubs and other workplaces starting on Jan. 1, 2009. The House Health Care and Human Services Finance Division passed the bill 14-7 after what looked like a warm-up for a bigger debate on the House floor.
Opponents tried to amend the bill to outlaw smoking entirely, ban trans fats and force the state to condemn and purchase bars that failed under the ban. Another failed amendment would have delayed the ban until all American Indian reservations adopted the same rules.
Two amendments succeeded: One would let long-haul truckers who travel with a spouse or significant other continue to smoke legally in their cabs. Another change reduced the penalty for proprietors who fail to enforce the smoking ban, to a petty misdemeanor instead of a misdemeanor.
The bill was sent to the House Finance Committee.

Smoking ban progress met with anxiety-Some bars say it will be the end of their business
March 10, 2007
Anxious smokers and some business owners will have to wait until later next month for the final outcome of a proposed smoking ban working its way through the state legislature.

Commentary: Shine the light on state grants to non-profits
Erik Paulsen, Bemidji Pioneer
March 14, 2007
As the legislature works to set the state’s biennial budget for the next two years, the public can expect a healthy debate over the prioritization of state appropriations. Legislators will certainly differ in opinion in where those dollars should be directed, be it in education, health care or transportation, etc.
However, one thing we all can agree on is to ensure that the monies we are appropriating are used for their intended purposes. State government provides a large number of grants for a wide variety of purposes. The flow of these grants should be transparent and their receipts accountable to policymakers and the public.
Read more

Share your opinion on H. F. No. 305 with The Minnesota House of Representatives
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/survey/hf305.asp

Smoking ban stays alive – with tough choice for bars
Pioneer Press – St. Paul,MN,USA
PAUL – The statewide smoking ban survived what could have been its toughest committee hearing on Thursday with one major change – a provision that would …

Smoking ban tied to taxes
Post-Bulletin – Rochester,MN,USA
A provision included in a statewide smoking ban doesn’t wow at least two in Rochester who are especially interested in whatever lawmakers come up with. …

Why I Voted Against the Statewide Smoking Ban
2/21/07
By Tom Neuville
The Senate Business and Jobs Committee, link here, (which I serve on) held hearings on the Statewide Smoking Ban bill. The chief author of the bill is Senator Kathy Sheran (DFL-Mankato). Here is a copy of the bill as it came to our Committee.
Read More

?
Smoke ’em if you got ’em, Senate committee says, as bars with ventilation systems get break

Feb. 19, 2007
BY RACHEL E. STASSEN-BERGER, Pioneer Press

Smokers, light your cigarettes.

A Senate committee today changed the statewide smoking ban to allow smoking in bars, if the bar has a ventilation system.

The ventilation requirement would be phased in, depending on how much alcohol the bar sells as a percentage of all sales. By June 2009, bars earning up to 40 percent of sales from alcohol must have a system in place. The grace period for installing a system then increases with the percentage of alcohol sold. Bars earning 80 percent or more of sales from alcohol have until 2014 to install a system.

The measure would also forbid local governments from enacting any smoking bans that go further than the state law.

That would mean that if the ban were enacted as the Senate Committee on Business, Industry and Jobs left it today, St. Paul, Minneapolis and other local governments would have to allow smoking in bars with ventilation systems.

Currently, St. Paul bans smoking in bars but the rest of Ramsey County allows smoking in establishments with more than 50 percent of their sales from alcohol.

The measure would ban smoking in restaurants.

It’s unlikely the ban proposal will remain in the form it left the Senate committee today. At least three more committees will debate the proposal before it hits the Senate floor.

In the House, a complete smoking ban in bars and restaurants awaits a hearing in the Commerce and Labor committee.

Senate panel OKs smoking ban with loophole for ventilated bars

February 19, 2007

A Senate committee has approved a modified statewide smoking ban that would except bars that install ventilation systems.

The bill was amended with a schedule giving bars deadlines for installing the systems. If they didn’t meet a deadline tied to their alcohol sales, they would have to prohibit smoking.

The amendment would also prevent local governments from imposing their own more stringent requirements — which could potentially loosen smoking restrictions in some cities and counties.

The smoking ban’s sponsor, Sen. Kathy Sheran (SHEHR’-uhn), says she hopes the bill will go back to its original form before it gets a final vote in the Senate. The original bill outlawed smoking in all bars, restaurants, private clubs and other workplaces statewide.

The bill’s next stop is a local government committee.

Minnesota Senate Committees
State and Local Government Operations and Oversight Committee?
Chair: Ann H. Rest
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Room 205
St. Paul, MN 55155-1606
651.296.1113
Regular Meeting Schedule:
Room 123 Capitol
Monday and Wednesday
3 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

Smoking ban talks still fiery
Area bar owners aren’t certain the ban will draw smokers back to campus.

February 15, 2007
By Courtney Blanchard

As lawmakers debate a statewide smoking ban, some campus bar owners wonder if it will fire up business again.

Proponents of the bill hope the ban would alleviate health problems and competition between bars in different jurisdictions. Opponents, however, see it as an invasion of personal choice that will lure patrons from Minnesota bars.

Lawmakers narrowly rejected exempting bars and restaurants that make more than half of their revenue through liquor sales from the ban in the Senate Business, Industry and Jobs Committee on Wednesday.

Committee chair Sen. James Metzen, DFL-St. Paul, emphasized a sense of urgency.

“I want to pass a bill out of there, as strong as possible,” he said.

Lawmakers ran out of time to vote on the bill after hearing testimony from opponents of the bill. Among the testifiers was Earl “Doc” Smith, an engineer who demonstrated on his son’s empty hamster cage how to eliminate fumes by ventilating bars.

Business and the ban

Campus-area businesses are in disagreement about the effect of the citywide smoking ban passed almost two years ago.

Mike Mulrooney, owner of Blarney Pub & Grill in Dinkytown, said the smoking ban had no impact on his business.

“Overall I think it creates a better atmosphere,” he said, citing a cleaner environment and less maintenance.

Mulrooney, himself a smoker, said he thinks a statewide ban would help bars that are losing patrons to bordering counties that permit smoking.

Grandma’s Saloon & Grill general manager Hal Holmes said business had definitely been affected by the Minneapolis smoking ban.

“Let me put it this way: The number of nonsmokers didn’t replace the number of smokers,” he said.

Holmes said he wasn’t sure a statewide ban would bring business back to Grandma’s, but suggested it could help bars bordering counties without a ban.

Stub & Herbs owner Sue Jeffers said the proposed ban would only give bar patrons new borders to cross.

“A level playing field is Communism,” she said.
?
Jeffers has been involved in the smoking ban debate for several years, and said the government’s role isn’t to impose such a ban.

She’s critical of how tobacco settlement money is used to “exaggerate the effects of secondhand smoke.

“What’s unfortunate is they started with an admirable goal: to get people to stop smoking,” Jeffers said.

Health and government control

DFL Rep. Alice Hausman, who represents the St. Paul campus, said the bill is primarily about health.

“This is an issue of where we can affect health care costs,” she said.

Hausman said she hopes such a ban will protect employees in bars and restaurants, as well as give smokers incentive to quit.

“Though there is always this perception that it is a business killer, it just doesn’t seem to be the case,” she said. “Smokers adjust.”

Marketing and political science first-year student Andy Post said the bill doesn’t meet its purpose to protect health because it excludes casinos and doesn’t ban all tobacco.

“I definitely hate being around smoke, but I don’t choose to go to bars with a lot of smoke,” he said. “I understand that when I go there, I put myself at risk.”

Post said he is not a smoker and doesn’t expect a bar to throw out smoking customers to accommodate him.

Post added that only local government should pass such a ban.

Todd Klingel, president and CEO of the Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce, said states are moving toward smoking bans.

He said it’s hard to track the effects of county and city bans in Minnesota because some bars suffer while others experience increased food sales.

“I think eventually the whole nation’s going to go smoke-free and then you’ll have to get your passport and go to Canada to smoke,” he said.
Read

Proposed statewide ban has people smoking mad

February 15, 2007
By Jeff Colassi

It all depends on who you talk to.

To some people, a statewide smoking ban is seen as an erosion of fundamental rights. To others, it’s seen as a healthy step in the right direction.

Minnesota legislators inched another step closer last week to instituting a statewide smoking ban. The bill is, perhaps ironically, titled the “Freedom to Breathe Act.”
?
Though this campaign was thwarted in 2005, it is back for another go at the legislative process. It appears to have a lot of support from the general public, too.

This time, however, the ban is more wide-reaching. Unlike the 2005 version of the bill, this ban would include private clubs such as the Eagle’s Club and Servicemen’s Club-establish-ments which have traditionally sidestepped bans such as these due to their private club status.

Bar owners and their patrons have a lot of concerns about the plan.
?
“It’s kind of unfair because we’re privately owned,” said Scott Meyer, manager of Meyer’s Bar & Lounge. “And cigarettes are legal. It should be our choice to allow it or not because we pay taxes.”

Sharon Tesrow, owner of Meyer’s Bar & Lounge, also expressed concerns.

“I feel it would hurt the business. I would say 70 percent of our patrons smoke,” said Tesrow. “I definitely think it would hurt most bars. It just goes along with having a drink.”
?
“Everybody should have their freedoms,” Tesrow continued. “What are they going to take away next?”

One patron echoed the sentiment regarding fundamental rights.

“I feel like we live in the U.S. for our freedoms,” said Meyer’s Bar & Lounge patron Vicky. “In America we have the right to make that choice. If you don’t want to be in a bar where there’s smoke, don’t go.”
?
Studies do raise some questions about the safety of second-hand smoke.

According to the American Lung Association, second-hand smoke causes an estimated 3,400 deaths from lung cancer and between 22,000 and 69,000 deaths from heart disease each year.

But are these numbers worthy of such wide, sweeping legislation? Especially in consideration of the economic impact a ban could have on a small community like Sleepy Eye and its bars and restaurants.
?
Many opponents of the anti-smoking legislation also question the validity of the studies.

Still, many people feel this is a step in the right direction.

“If it’s in a place where I have to breathe people’s smoke, I’m very much for it,” said Ginifer Simon, a smoking ban supporter. “I get offended when I breathe other people’s smoke. I get sick.”
?
The new law would carry a misdemeanor charge if violated. Charges could be brought against a patron who violates the ban or a bar owner who allows patrons to violate the ban in their establishment.

Since the bill is undergoing close scrutiny by the senate, it may be changed before it is officially voted upon.

No matter the outcome, this polarizing issue is sure to cause a stir.
Read

Smoking ban fuels debate in St. Paul

February 14th, 2007
Danielle Cabot, Herald-Review

ST. PAUL — An even playing field was called for by testifiers on both sides of the smoking ban debate on Monday. The Freedom to Breathe Act was heard in the Senate Jobs Government and Industry Committee, where it faced scrutiny over its potential impact on small business and jobs in the state.
?
Sens. Thomas Bakk, DFL-Cook, and David Tomassoni, DFL-Chisholm, serve on the committee. While Bakk expressed cautious support for further discussion, Tomassoni argued that the bill infringed on individual freedom.

“This is about being American. This is about having the choice,” said Tomassoni.

Michael Brommelkamp, co-author of a research study to measure the economic effects of smoking bans in the state testified that the report, which analyzed government data, found no aggregate impact on local or the state economy, and business receipts returned to or exceeded pre-ban numbers. The report also found the number of establishments increased where smoking bans exist, and the numbers of employees increased in all but one of seven jurisdictions.

Service clubs like the American Legion were represented on both sides of the debate. Bernadette Chlebeck, a member of Veterans for Smoke Free Air, testified in favor of the ban. As vice commander for the VFW in Coon Rapids, Chlebeck is responsible for membership. She said the number one reason veterans tell her they do not join veterans organizations is because of the smoking. Chlebeck argued that declining numbers for service clubs call for a transition to family-friendly, youth-oriented facilities which should not allow smoking.

Opposing the bill, Dick Kolb of the Osseo American Legion testified that border towns will be harmed by a ban, and he has seen drops in business of more than 30 percent.

James Forward of Koscak’s Bar in Chisholm testified against the bill.

“I pay my taxes. I pay my liquor taxes, and I don’t think anyone has the right to tell me what kind of establishment I run.”

As a veteran and member of the VFW and a bar owner, Forward said that he hopes establishments with more than 50 percent in liquor sales would be exempt.

“I don’t believe we should have a statewide smoking ban a hundred percent,” said Forward, “but if we are going to have one, and this is what this committee is going to decide, and if this is the way it’s going to be, then put everyone on the same playing field.”

Two lobby associations for the hospitality industry testified for a statewide ban. Steve Watson of the Minnesota Restaurant Association asked the committee to provide a level playing field in the state to address the “patchwork” of local smoking ordinances. Watson said that the association would prefer no government intervention, but that exceptions would prioritize the health of restaurant workers over bar and club workers.

Kristin Beckmann of the Service Employees Industry U nion said that the ban would begin to address the “crushing costs of health care,” citing $1.6 billion in costs for treating smoking related diseases.

“The opening of a chain restaurant will have a much greater impact on local independent businesses than any smoking ban ever could,” said Elizabeth Gaetz, manager and co-owner of Anton’s in St. Cloud.

Gaetz testified about the death of her mother from lung cancer, which she attributes to decades of second smoke exposure in the restaurant business. Gaetz said that people are social by nature and will continue to patronize bars and restaurants regardless if they can smoke.

But Sen. Rod Skoe, DFL-Clearbrook, said that many establishments in Beltrami County have seen declines around 40 percent.

“There certainly have been winners and losers in the mix.”

Sen. Kathy Sheran, DFL- Mankato, is Senate sponsor of the bill, which was expected to receive a vote Monday, but has been postponed until Wednesday to finish testimony.