Shawn
sheilaWe’ve recently been sending out surveys to all the Minnesota House incumbents, as well as their challengers for the Minnesota House Elections in November. Most of the authors of the smoking ban have refused to reply or complete the survey, but Daniel Severson of Sauk Rapids was kind enough to respond.
I do appreciate Mr. Severson taking the time to share his thoughts, even if they are in conflict with ours. I would have replied directly to Mr. Severson, but I doubt there would be any point to that, as it’s unlikely he would open his mind to my point of view.
With that stated, let me comment on his reply:
I was co author for the Freedom to Breath act and believe that it was well thought out and gives all businesses a level playing field with which to compete.
Yes, I would agree it was well thought out (the ad campaigns, the scare tactics, ignoring surveys that indicated Minnesota residents favored business owners making their own choice, etc.) However, it does not level the playing field. First, by Mr. Severson’s own admission, he is NOT in favor of state pre-emption, which means that all communities in the state would have an identical playing field. As it stands now, some communities, such as Rochester, do not allow allow wait staff to serve customers who are smoking on an outdoor patio. Other communities, such as Red Wing, are losing their customers to the tribal casino down the road, where it is perfectly legal to smoke indoors. Hardly a “level playing field”. The only true way to “level the playing field” is by allowing business owners to make their own choice, and not have the state dictate to them how to run their business.
The issue of employee health and sound scientific evidence makes this legislation one on the most meaningful health care reforms of our time.
A smoking ban is a health care reform? Were there that many people dropping dead from second-hand smoke that we needed to infringe on a business owner’s right to allow a legal product on his property? I would imagine that if it was such an important health care reform, that worker’s comp insurance premiums for bar owners will come way down in price. I’ll let a bar owner confirm or deny that one.
By an overwhelming majority, people appreciate the absence of smoke and its toxins when going out to public places.
An overwhelming majority? Perhaps an overwhelming majority that have been convinced that second-hand smoke is as deadly as mustard gas. Using taxpayer funded propaganda to scare the masses into backing a bill that costs charities millions of dollars, and puts hundreds of bars out of business is despicable.
I believe in personal rights and personal responsibility as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of another. Smoking in public places does just that.
Which rights are you referring to? If you are referring to the “right to breathe clean air”, there is no such right, at least not in the US or Minnesota Constitution. And cigarette smoke is easily identifiable. More insidious air pollutants, such as ozone, dust mites, radon are still likely present.
When you own an establishment you take on the responsibility of ensuring the food is safe as well as the water.
Yes, you do. And if you don’t, and make someone sick, you will be defending yourself in court, and possibly paying a large sum of money. Nobody has ever won a case involving a business and second-hand smoke. Ever.
The smoking ban is akin to not only making sure the water is safe, but that it is purified water. Are we going to require bar owners to only serve water that contains no arsenic (most drinking water does contain arsenic, along with a lot of other “deadly” chemicals).
This is a responsible step based on sound scientific research ( Surgeon Generals 2006 report).
Interpreting information from the 2006 Surgeon General’s Report is no different than interpreting information from the Bible. It is contradictory, contains outdated references, and a lot of names that no one remembers. If the 2006 Surgeon General’s Report is anything, it is definitely NOT sound scientific research.
Repealing this act would be a huge step backwards for anyone wanting to reign in health care costs and promote healthy lifestyles which reduce health care system demands.
Is there any evidence that the smoking ban has reduced health care costs? If there is, I must have missed the memo. And is it the government’s duty to promote healthy lifestyles? And if it is, where do we stop? Do we ban loud music, and peanuts, and alcohol, and fatty foods, and cars?
It is certainly a sad state of affairs in this country when our lawmakers feel they must nanny us and control our lives for us. I for one, am going to take a trip to Wisconsin, where I can at least regain one piece of my liberty that has been stripped away from me by my “caring” government.
Filed under: Uncategorized
