Well Minnesota, it would seem that you’re stuck in a losing battle when it comes to smoking. I wish I could say that you’re fighting a losing battle, but I can’t rightly say that I have seen much in terms of fighting. In fact, I have seen more conceding than fighting, which is sorely disappointing when you consider what is at stake here.
We all saw this coming, yet nobody stood up and tried to stop it. Being in Wisconsin, all I can do is watch and learn and hope to God that the masses on this side of the river learn from this disaster; and I am not using the word disaster here lightly. For you see, Minnesota, as if the smoking ban wasn’t enough, there is one flaw in the legislation that ran deeper than the others, and it was allowed to pass without scrutiny. That flaw, and the one that people should really be taking notice of, is the open-ended nature of the legislation.
The nature of the Minnesota smoking ban allowed for local government to add to the State smoking ban as they saw fit. That is bad news for smokers who live in the prissy liberal areas, and even worse for bar and restaurant owners in those areas. Those of us who were critical of the Freedom to Breathe Act when it was first introduced saw this coming, and now that the State officially went smoke free as of October first, we figured it was only a matter of time before local governments started squeezing even harder; and while I would like to say that it surprises me that it has taken less than two weeks to surface, I can’t.
According to an article in today’s Pioneer Press, the state smoking ban is getting local governments thinking about outdoor patio rules. For those who don’t know, the Freedom to Breathe Act banned smoking indoors but allowed establishments to have outdoor smoking area. It did not, however, limit local government’s ability to ban outdoor smoking, which is now become a hot topic among the cities. After all, the cities around here seem to be in constant competition with one another, slobbering over each other as they fight over who can bend the furthest to special interests… And now they have just been thrown one of the biggest bones of all. how long will it be before a Minnesota city goes over the edge and bans smoking on private residences? It’s already happened in California (read about it here on Wake Up America), so what’s to stop it from happening here?
What’s really concerning is that the cities are working in very underhanded ways to cut smoking. Instead of simply saying that they aren’t going to allow smoking and face the fallout head on (which would also open them up to direct challenges), they are working on backdoor methods of eliminating outdoor smoking. For instance, the city of Bloomington has added patio ordinances that prohibits smoking 25 feet from building entrances and open windows and requires half of outdoor seating to be smoke-free. Other cities, like St. Paul, require approval of 90% of residents living within 300 feet of a patio and Lakeville who is working on an ordinance that requires fencing, emergency exits and limited hours… And Dakota County has already tacked on a smoke free perks ordinance.
So the big question is when is enough going to be enough? As the anti-smoking crowd lays claim to private property as well as public spaces, how long will it be before they succeed in snuffing out smoking rights completely? The only place they have left to go is your own home and property, and if the city of Belmont, California stands as any sort of barometer, Minnesotans should really be concerned as local governments take aim at legislating smoking out of existence.
I wondered if you were going to pick up on this. I read it before church this morning with the idea that if you DIDN’T pick up on it, I would.
Good work Ryan.
LL
Doesnt look like anyone gives a shit Ryan.
Not untill they ban the color red because of its tendency to make people aggressive and the sexual connetations attached will they wake up.
There goes half our flag.
Government power real health hazard
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of “second-hand” smoke.
Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the “right” decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.
Once you give them an inch, they take a mile. They just slowly but surely keep taking and taking and taking until one day you wake up and realize what happened, by then it is too late. You are left to wonder “How did we let this happen?”
Micky, I think I remember a story from before I started blogging about some schools doing away with the color red when grading papers because a child seeing a bad grade in red could be traumatized, they were going to switch to purple because it was easier on the eyes and didn’t harm the child emotionally as much.
Prisons are always blue, green or grey, its been proven to calm the population.
I disagree with you saying no one stood up to fight the ban. I knew of a group of Minnesota restauranteers who banded together to fight this and were not taken seriously. Now it appears to be too late. We in Wisconsin are far better off for their loss. We are seeing how far out of hand it can get. This allows for us to be better prepared to fight it. It is a shame that it has come to this, but the population for the most part, has to be slammed over the head before it notices things are going south. Like the frog that is placed in tepid water and then gradually heated, Mn was placed in this slow-losing situation and now look what they have been handed. I am a non-smoker yet I believe in the right to do as you see fit if you are a business owner. I will patronize a bar or restaurant because it allows smoking to show my support for freedom of choice. It could very well be that second-hand smoke does cause health issues, but it is my choice to expose myself to the once or twice weekly “insult” to my body. When I moved out from my mothers I became an adult and was legally allowed certain rights. I wonder when they will outlaw all that is bad? Certain foods and alcohol, you better watch your butt. It’s just a matted of time before you’re next.
Yeah this situation sucks here in mn. You know its amazing how quick laws can be bought and with no investigation into the matter. Clearway (a anti-smoke group) says in their commercials that 38,000 people die each year of second hand smoke. Where is the death certificates, oh that’s right there are probably none. That ventilation systems will not work, but yet they (gov’t) don’t even bother to check. It’s the old saying you tell a lie long enough, it becomes truth to a lot of people. Or is it baffle with brilliance, dazzle them with bullshit
hey Joe, thanks for stopping by.
You’re very right. If you tell a lie long enough and people will believe it, especially if you start to believe it yourself. These anti smoking nutballs have convinced themselves and now they’re out to convince everybody else that what they believe is truth.
And yeah, I forgot all about Clearway. Those guys really piss me off. Didn’t they spend the tobacco lawsuit money on their anti smoking campaign instead of health care like they claimed they were doing?
Since I work in a bar, I couldn’t be happier with the fresh, clean air in the bars and restaurants. I hate to tell the smokers the honest truth, but smoke stinks like crap, and it needs to be away from the bars and restaurants. I look forward to the day when I get to tell my kids that people used to have the “privilege” to smoke in restaurants, and watch them stare back at me in wide-eyed disbelief. Smokers are a dying breed (literally), so I doubt that anyone really cares that they’ve been denied the chance to further accelerate their own (and everyone else’s) demise. Also, the overwhelming majority of people in the USA do not smoke – so I guess the democratic principles on which this country was founded have prevailed. God bless America.
So what you’re saying is that it is OK to forcibly dictate how private businesses are run simply because it only affects a minority segment of the population?
That’s pretty disturbing. If that logic where applied to any minority segment other than smokers, people would go out of their minds trying to protect their rights.
The problem is that we are cutting the freedom of choice in this country. One thing that has made America great is the people’s ability to make choices concerning their own lives. If people choose to smoke, so be it. If they choose to work where they are exposed to smoke, so be it.
Why not ban drinking too? Drinking directly or indirectly kills or injures a lot of people every year, and the evidence supporting alcohol-related deaths is much stronger than any of the evidence regarding passive smoke inhalation.
Thank You I can’t recall a time when someone died from DWS (Driving while Smoking)and yes sir arch clearway did spend that money on ads for their anti smoke crusade probabally close to a half a million. I wonder how much was given to certain politicans. I hope wisconsin dosen’t ban it. I still enjoy Dick’s in Hudson.
Also arch now it’s not 38,000 people who have died from SHS but now 610. Clearway still can’t keep a lie straight. 38,000 in 05, 49,000 in 06 now 610 in 07.Great website keep up the good work.
Here in Minnesota we did have a lot of people fight against this display of dictatorship. But the nanny politico’s may have heard them but they didn’t listen. Hell the state set up a worker dislocation fund. So that if you go out of business due to the ban, we’ll help ya out. According to these politico’s no business was supposed to go out of business b/c they would be getting new clientele. Funny how that works huh?
Thanks for stopping by, Joe. It’s all a big scam and full of lies, but we’re working to make sure you can keep smoking in Hudson. We’ve started an activist group called ban the ban Wisconsin and we’re campaigning against the ban here.
http://www.banthebanwisconsin.com
Stop by and keep an eye on the site (or subscribe to the email updates) because we’re planning a smoke out in Hudson
Sounds like a blast let me know the place and time. Id be happy to come and join. I know dicks isn’t exactly the place to be but my friends and I always seem to have a blast there. We would go there after our 1am time was up. Have a good week. take it easy.
Thanks Joe! I’ll let you know what happens. I’ve actually never been to Dicks, but we want to have our shindig someplace central and convenient.
We found a great loophole in our ban law don’t know if you heard about it, but bars now are turning into theaters. Our law states that if smoking is a part of a performance then it is allowed. Lets hope more bars catch on.