09.26.07
Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em… Minnesota gets set to go smoke free
Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em
Not just a catch phrase any more, one of my favorite lines is becoming a sad reality for the folks of Minnesota very shortly. In fact, you’ve only got until Monday to enjoy a smoke at your favorite bar or club. After that it’s out in the cold with you.
Of course, I have to ask just one simple question. How is it that we allowed this to happen? How did we let the American Lung association and a bunch of little whining special interest groups boss our government around to the point of them infringing on private property rights? I mean, is this legal?
Of course, the writing is on the wall as far as what is happening here. First off, it is yet another move by the nanny state to take care of us “little people” who are too dumb to take care of ourselves apparently. Second off, this is a de facto way to try to get people to quit smoking. In other words, if you won’t quit on your own, we’ll force you to through questionable laws and legislation. Alongside that is the push by the anti-smoking citizens and organizations who think that it’s ok to use the government to push their agendas on everybody else. Don’t believe me? Check out this press release from Hazelden entitled “The Statewide Smoking Ban is Fast Approaching. Are You Ready to Quit Smoking?” The first line of the article is “he Minnesota statewide smoking ban will take effect on Oct. 1, causing many people across the state to consider a personal decision to stop smoking.” I mean, come on! Do you mean to tell me that the smoking ban isn’t being used to push people to quit smoking? After all, if you take away all the places that people can smoke, won’t they have to eventually quit? Bastards.
Minnesota’s so called “Freedom To Breath Act” (FTB) is actually having quite the opposite effect as it puts the individual’s freedom to choose in a brutal stranglehold in favor of the special interest crowd. The violations of personal freedoms within the FTB act run deep and I can’t help but to wonder what makes this OK. For example, let’s look at what this monster actually says:
“Smoking is prohibited in all indoor public places and workplaces. This includes bars, restaurants, private clubs, retail stores, offices, industrial workplaces, public transportation, work vehicles (if more than one person present), home offices (if customers or other employees are present), childcare facilities, home daycares during business hours, public and private educational institutions, healthcare facilities, common areas of rental apartment buildings and hotels/motels, auditoriums, arenas and meeting rooms.”
So you can no longer smoke at a workplace restaurant or bar. Questionable as workplaces are still privately owned entities and now the business owners no longer have right to choose on their own private property. But that’s the least of our problems here. Private clubs? So now a private club owner doesn’t have the right to allow smoking if he sees fit? I mean, how is smoking in a private club a public health issue? Home offices? I don’t care who’s visiting your home office. They can leave. It’s still your home. Common areas of apartment buildings? Private educational institutions? I mean, get real. As a veteran who served this country, I cannot even go to a VFW or American Legion post and smoke a cigarette and talk about the “good old days” with the other vets. How asinine is that?
This is getting out of hand. Does private property mean nothing to the anti-smoking crowd and their loyal government lap dogs? Everybody has the freedom of choice, and as such, everybody has the freedom to choose whether or not they want to be around smoke. While I agree that public places (not common areas of private property), schools, daycares etc may be subject to smoking laws, how does private property fit into the law? You don’t have to ever enter another’s private property if you don’t want to. You are not being forced to go into a smoke filled environment. It’s a choice. This isn’t a public health issue. I am tired of hearing that it is. This is a violation of private property rights and an insult to everybody who appreciates the right to choose how to live their lives.
What this is doing is catering to the people who don’t want to choose. They want the freedom to go wherever they please without having to decide if they want to contend with smoke. This is all about putting one person’s rights above another, which is absolutely wrong to do. Does a non-smoker who wants to drink at my bar have more rights than I do? No, of course not. As a property owner, I have the right to allow smoking on my property, whilst you have no right to even come on my property. It’s a privilege. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Have we really so willingly given up our basic rights in lieu of a fanatical crowd of people who want things their way or no way? Pay no mind to individual’s rights, property owner’s rights or the fact that these laws will harm small businesses. It’s all about wanting the government to make your decisions for you (and in turn the rest of us).
So what are the arguments (benefits) for this great pooch screw? Just go to “Fresh Air Minnesota” (seriously, check out their website, it’s a hoot) and take a big deep breath of the bullshit.
“Smoke-free policies significantly improve public health in Minnesota.”
“All workers will be protected from secondhand smoke in the workplace, including restaurant and bar workers.”
“Reduction in secondhand smoke means a reduction in healthcare costs.”
“Smoke-free policies help people quit.”
So not only do we get the public health angle, we get the health care angle and the “I don’t want to choose where I work based on if they allow smoking” angle. These people work hard to fill people’s heads with all of the “evil’s” of smoke, yet never once do they address the property rights issue. At every turn they turn to the evils of smoke.
“Bar and restaurant workers in Minnesota have been among the most exposed and least protected from secondhand smoke - which is known to cause cancer and contains 250 toxic chemicals.”
“Each year in Minnesota, 66,000 people are treated for illnesses and disease caused as a result of exposure to the toxic chemicals in secondhand smoke.”
“The Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007 will significantly reduce the amount of deadly poisons Minnesotans are exposed to in public places. These include arsenic, cadmium, formaldehyde, lead and benzene.”
Bad! Evil! Toxic! Look out, if you’re not careful it might just get you with all of its toxins!
Pathetic. These twits are so damned selfish that they actually make ME look altruistic, and that’s tough to do. This is government abuse at its finest, and we just go along with it because we have groups like Fresh Air Minnesota telling us how bad and terrible smoke is and how we don’t have to stand for it.
Oh really? And I guess that coming on my property has now become a right, not a privilege, huh? Just wait, if this keeps up you will not be allowed to smoke in your own home if somebody comes and visits you or if you have any other family members in the house. After all, it’s absolutely no different, so why not? It’s the next logical step.
in2thefray said,
September 26, 2007 at 4:49 pm
The science behind SHS is poor.I’m not a smoker but having seen firefighters take off Scot-Paks to go to Marlboro Country and growing up in a city with buses etc I think the second hand smoke is the least of my pollutant worries. I often wonder what all the smoking Nazis are going to do for revenue when they eventually “stamp out smoking” I’m thinking something creative like switching the expenditure of the infamous tobacco settlement $$ from anti smoking campaigns to general budget items.
arclightzero said,
September 26, 2007 at 6:38 pm
That brings up a really good point, that ties into current events. The current SCHIP plan in congress is due to be funded by a ludicrous increase in tobacco taxes. When the smokers are stamped out, where will the tax revenue come from? It’s interesting how they don’t often think about the bigger picture when it comes to their hairbrained plans.
viciemonkey said,
September 26, 2007 at 7:35 pm
It’s all crappity crap. As a former smoker, I sought and found places to smoke. I was 14. I did not care and no one could make me do anything. And I quit when I was damn good and ready. Anybody who has ever succeeded in quitting knows the truth in that. What is wrong with people? Why can they not just mind their own business and not frequent places that allow smoking. How in the hell did they ever get the upper hand?!!
micky2 said,
September 26, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I saw a mock ad today somewhere while investigating the schip thing, it was looking for new smokers.
These are the kind of people yoou just want to get in an elevator with and fart your brains out.
David Oliver said,
September 26, 2007 at 8:35 pm
According to Schumer they are passing legislation which will pay for their bill without hurting average Americans. Who the hell does he think are smoking cigarettes, only rich people?
In fact many poor people smoke, so the people who are voting for this bill are hurting the segment of the population they so loudly claim to champion.
One other thing he said was that the tax was supported by 2/3 of the population. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think that is about the percentage of non-smokers in the U.S. This is simply a case of the majority abusing the minority because they can. It is an ugly thing, lookup some other situations in history where this has happened.
mpinkeyes said,
September 26, 2007 at 9:22 pm
New Hampshire officially went smoke free on September 17th, although we don’t seem to have it as bad as you do. Private clubs are still allowed to smoke, but not when a public event is held there such as bingo (all those little old ladies who like to sit there and gamble while smoking won’t be happy). Home offices? Now that is something I hadn’t heard about before, that is insane!
It is only a matter of time before you are only allowed to smoke in your own home (unless it’s an office). If they really believed smoking, or second hand smoke was that bad for you they should ban it, but of course they LOVE that tax revenue.
As a non-smoker, I can choose to go to a bar that allows smoking or I could choose to go to a bar that doesn’t allow smoking. IT’S MY CHOICE! Not any more. Government has taken more control away from public enterprise.
deaconblue said,
September 27, 2007 at 2:16 am
C’mon, didn’t you know that the government knows what’s best for you? LOL. Try living here in NY. Though at least the state wide ban has an exemption clause in it, which believe it or not, has been used. But the real point was not so much about smoking (the state likes that tax revenue), but to close down your local bar, at least that was the point here in NY, especially in the city. It’s real target was the local bar, not the restaurants or the chains or the trendy theme places. You know the ones, the bars which have been there for 50 years, with the same clientel for years upon years, usually in economically depressed areas, “ripe” for “redevelopment.” Close the bars, and lower the property values so a developer can get in cheap and put up a strip mall or condos. Watch what happens in your areas.
Also, if you can find it, check out Penn&Teller’s episode of Bullshit on second hand smoke. A whole lot of debunking on all those studies” done on it, including the fraudulent one put out by the US government under Clinton.
arclightzero said,
September 27, 2007 at 7:46 am
For a good read on second hand smoke, check out The Antisocialist’s fine take on the matter:
http://the-antisocialist.com/2007/09/06/the-joke-of-secondhand-smoke/
Anyway, David Oliver brings up a good point about who smokes cigarettes and who gets hurt by the tax increases. Some info from the Heritage Foundation reveals:
Pretty nice, eh? Combine that with this:
It really makes you wonder how it is that they can make these sorts of proposals while also pushing the anti-smoking campaigns. They just don’t work together, yet who, besides us, is bringing this up?
micky2 said,
September 27, 2007 at 10:29 am
The left constantly says we are not protecting our people well enough and bla bla bla and the gonerment is nothing but a bunch of screw ups, they don’t know how to do this or that.
But they are willing to put their lives in the hands of goverment run socialized medicine.
I guess when you dont have to pay for something it doesnt matter how crappy it is
arclightzero said,
September 27, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Of course, the begs to question who it is that’s responsible for taking care of us. Last time I checked, it was the government’s job to protect us militarily and from criminal action (police). Other than that, it’s up to us to protect our own selves. Why isn’t anybody else asking these sorts of things? Why isn’t anybody else pointing out that we are not babies that need to be nannied, and that it is not the government’s job to keep us from harming ourselves? It has somehow become vogue to assume that we’re all helpless and need to be taken care or else we’ll all just perish. Hence universal health care, smoking bans, trans fat bans… You name it, they’ll try to protect you from it. They never stop, though, to ask if people want it like that. What if people want to smoke or be around smoke? What if people like their trans fat cooked donut? Hell, what if I want to drive without my seatbelt on? Isn’t it my right to do so? My god, who’s life is this anyway?
micky2 said,
September 27, 2007 at 2:32 pm
You might fly through the windshield and go through a liberals windshield, Prius and Volvo windshields are some of the most expensive ones to replace.
They have built in holographic displays of falling ice bergs and polar bears wandering around.
Joey @ Pheistyblog said,
September 27, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Micky, I love you already. If I weren’t married, I’d be chasing you down. (After I got tired of Jason Lewis, that is.)
You said something that I’ve been saying to my liberal friends for quite some time, now:
“The left constantly says we are not protecting our people well enough and bla bla bla and the gonerment is nothing but a bunch of screw ups, they don’t know how to do this or that.
But they are willing to put their lives in the hands of goverment run socialized medicine.
I guess when you dont have to pay for something it doesnt matter how crappy it is”
Couldn’t have stated it better, myself. Apparently, liberals don’t understand irony.
micky2 said,
September 27, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Pheisty,
I was a liberal for quite a while, product of the 60s flower children.
About 15 years ago I got tired of being miserable.
Ironically enough, at the same time I got clean and sober.
arclightzero said,
September 28, 2007 at 11:46 am
As an interesting side note. As we all know, the ACLU is worthless unless they can go after people or groups for sexy, popular causes. Despite their pledge to freedom, they’re not really interested in freedom unless it makes them look good.
I decided to give them one shot at redeeming themselves. I wrote to them and explained the concerns regarding personal and property rights associated with smoking bans and how it is a violation of basic freedoms afforded to Americans (i.e. the freedom to choose). They wrote me back and told me that they weren’t interested. They didn’t address any of my questions (like why the ACLU hasn’t looked into this violation of freedom when they jump to address every other violation of a minority population, which smokers certainly are). They didn’t address why it is that they are allowing the majority population’s supposed rights trample over the smoker’s and private property owner’s rights. They essentially blew me off, presumably because it isn’t popular or sexy to protect somebody’s right to smoke or a property owner’s right to allow smoking on his private property.
At least we know where they stand when it comes to freedom I guess.
ChenZhen said,
September 30, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Maybe I missed it, but are the casinos affected by this as well? Mystic Lake?
arclightzero said,
October 1, 2007 at 6:45 am
They tried to ban it everywhere, including casinos on Indian land, but that failed. I actually covered this topic a while back along with the legal ramifications of the issue here:
http://arclightzero.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/minnesota-smoking-ban-moves-forward-is-there-any-limit-to-the-actions-of-these-power-hungry-nannies/#more-66
The sad part is that they tried to exert their power and violate the sanctity of sovereign ground (reservations) before they even looked into the legality of doing so. They were so hopped up on their power trip that they didn’t think it would matter if they tried to force their hand on rez property.
Either way, for now you can still light one up at the casino, which is all good by me.
Minnesota Smoking Ban moves forward: Is there any limit to the actions of these power-hungry nannies? « A [sometimes] Logical View of the Illogical said,
October 1, 2007 at 2:58 pm
[...] (read the latest on this topic here) Published in: [...]
Mike Bruzenak said,
October 2, 2007 at 7:00 am
There is an Alano club. The people that go to meetings there every night are over 80% smokers. The reason for that is that it was one of the few AA meeting places you could find where you could still smoke.
They had an exemption from the city of Bloomington on it’s smoking ban but that went away yesterday. Two militant non-smokers who I rarely see in my nearly daily meetings mounted a campaign to ban smoking and threatened the club and members with the fine.
I smoke four packs a day. I am an alcoholic and a cocaine addict. I could go into it rather deeply because I know how this stuff works but I wont. I know that if I try to quit smoking it will put me in serious danger of relapse. I know that now when I go to meetings at this club I will have to deal with some serious resentment every time I feel a nicotine jab.
I also know that if it hadn’t been for daily meetings where I could relax and the time before and after meetings at this club that I would have had a snowball’s chance in hell of making it through my first 30 days.
I am just bewildered and bitter at what has become of this state’s priorities.
arclightzero said,
October 2, 2007 at 7:11 am
Mike, you’re so right. there is so much more at stake here than just the so-called “public health” issue. I’m sure that there are many people in the same boat as you - people who have particular and rather important ties to smoking who are now getting squashed because a few people here and there felt the need to bitch and whine about smoke and the damned politicians decided it made them look good to get on board with them. It’s absurd, and you’re right… It leaves the rest of us feeling bitter and bewildered as to what is going on out there. I mean, what ever happened to the rest of our rights?
Not happy with their own rights, now they want yours too « A [sometimes] Logical View of the Illogical said,
October 11, 2007 at 11:03 am
[...] some sort of Mecca of liberalism that should be followed, and fearing that by Minnesota passing the Freedom to Breathe Act that Madison would be wetting their pants to follow. I was disturbed to no end when a poll surfaced [...]
Chad Hutmacher said,
November 19, 2007 at 3:59 pm
As a large MN bar owner, we have already seen our business, which was just making enough to get by in it’s only 2 yr old infancy, have its business slashed by 45-50% because of the loss of our smoking customers.
We do have an outside smoking area but it doesn’t matter, as of today November 19th, within a 50 mile radius of our bar, 11 bars have come up for sale and 3 have closed their doors completely. Thanks Pawlenty for the help with MN small business, the backbone of the state. All they have managed to do is put a bunch of small local businesses out of business and get the employees they were whining about protecting laid off as the bars that are still in existence are cutting staff bigtime along with hours of operation. Where are all the people who were saying yeah we’ll come in if theirs no smoking, BULLSHIT. The same crowd that comes in for 2 hours orders french fries and a glass of water and leaves a 25 cent tip, they really helped out the employees didnt they, who by the way 95% of our employees smoke, so now we are also paying them for not working while they go outside for a smoke break.
I couldn’t agree more with the comments on this site what a direct violation of our rights as a business owner and private property rights. ITS A CHOICE!! Now even an outside area has to be 50% open, wow thats fine if you live in Florida or California, but not good old -30 plus wind chill tropical Minnesota!! We have been banging our heads on the wall with as many of the bars as we can contact, but the bottom line is how in the hell did this happen in the first place? We need someone to challenge this with a law suit because I don’t see how they can regulate private property like this, it can’t be constitutional. If non smokers have a problem with a smokey bar, they can take their own money, pay the insane amount of insurance we do, plus the taxes we do, and build their own smoke free bar. PERIOD! We don’t go into other businesses and tell them what to do with THEIR business and THEIR money, oh no they would be howling like banshees that would make us go broke and put a bunch of people out of work. Well, WOW, NO SHIT!! Thats exactly what you did and the people we elected to help small business in MN let it happen.
arclightzero said,
November 20, 2007 at 8:05 am
Wow, thanks for the insight, Chad! That is a great bit of information that the anti-smoking nazis need to take a long, hard look at.
This joke about “clean air” or “freedom to breathe” is getting really old. You’re right, all they are doing is hurting small businesses and adding to the unemployment payroll. The problem is that they just don’t care. I have fought tooth and nail with these zealots, and they truly believe that they are on some sort of holy crusade against the evils of smoking - and you just cannot reason with them. They will not listen. There is no goal but their own. Anything or anybody who suffers as a result of their crusade are just considered to be collateral damage.
At the heart of the matter lies the fact that these people are arrogant assholes and the politicians are more interested in looking like saints in the public eye than in actually doing the right thing.