Smoking Ban Amendment Introduced

Today Minnesota Representatives Larry Howes, Tom Emmer, Tom Hackbarth, Loren Solberg, and Tom Rukavina introduced a bill, HF257 that would exempt certain bars from the smoking ban.

If this bill becomes law in in current form, all bars that make most of their sales in liquor would be permitted to allow smoking, provided that a modern ventilation system is installed. It would also allow bar portions of a bar/restaurant to allow smoking, provided that the bar is physically separated from the restaurant area. The full text of the bill is available here, and you can follow the status of the bill here.

So, what does this mean? Well, there’s not a companion bill in the Senate, yet. And, the bill has been referred to the Health Care and Human Services Policy and Oversight Committee, which is chaired by none other than Paul Thissen and Tina Liebling, who are extremely narrow-minded when it comes to the smoking ban. However, we do have some supporters in that committee, so we’ll keep our fingers crossed.

It certainly wouldn’t hurt to email your House Rep and let them know how you feel about this proposed exemption. Also, email or call the reps in the committee–their email addresses and phone numbers can be found here. Let them know that the smoking ban really hurts small bars, and that you support this exemption!

Perhaps She Should Get Out of the Kitchen

In the process of collecting the positions from state representatives, I got a response from Tina Liebling (District 30A), one of the authors of the smoking ban. This is what she wrote:

Shawn,
I am not responding because I don’t like the nasty tone of your web site.
Reasonable people can agree or disagree on issues, but I make it a policy not to respond to those who are disrespectful in the process.
Best,
Tina Liebling

Disrespectful, eh? I suspect she was referring to the district scorecard on BtBMN’s site. I could’ve left it alone, but I decided a reply was in order:

Tina,

I’m a little unclear as to why you state that our website has a “nasty tone” and is “disrespectful”. We try to keep our website as professional as possible.

If you refer to any website that contains facts, ideas, and opinions that differ from your own as “disrespectful”, it’s really surprising that you would run for a position as a lawmaker, as I would imagine you would be required to deal with a large array of opinions that may differ from your own.

The comment you made in the past referring to second-hand smoke as “poison” is hyperbole and downright offensive, and based upon those standards, much of the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the liquids we drink on a daily basis would be considered “poison”, as all of us ingest many carcinogens on a daily basis, regardless if we are subjected to second-hand smoke. That fact is that there is no hard evidence, no death certificates, no lawsuits against business owners, and no OSHA regulation on SHS. The only evidence presented is by several groups that intentionally misrepresented data for a financial gain.

Also, referring to SHS as “poison” marginalizes smokers as a part of the population who intentionally inflict pain and suffering, and even death upon friends, family, and others. I believe this is a futile attempt to shame and demonize smokers to get them to quit smoking, which set a very dangerous precedent, one I believe is very “nasty”.

This survey was an opportunity to clarify your position, and to effectively retract your statement about SHS being “poison”. However, it is clear that your position has not changed, and I will not make any further attempts to contact you regarding this issue.

Sincerely,

Shawn

 

Apparently, Tina didn’t want to discuss the issue any further, as she replied to my email by stating that she did not want me to contact her any further.

If you live in her district, I would suggest you contact her and let her know how you feel!

 

Technorati Tags: Tina Liebling,district 30a,anti-smoker

District 30A

District 30A is another district that is up for grabs. It covers most of the City of Rochester, and we need to get the incumbent, Tina Liebling, out of that seat. Click here for the district scorecard.

Tina was on board with “Big Pharma” to sponsor the ban. She was also against all exemptions, including the ones that were included in the final version of the bill. She has the distinction of being the only house member who voted against exempting farm equipment from the ban.

The following quotes from Tina should be an indication of how she loves governemnt control of businesses: 

As a public health measure, it is past time that we ban smoking from places of public accommodation.

There it is, she falls back to “public health”. Unfortunately, we know people like Tina will continue to look for more things to put under government control in the name of “public health”

I don’t think that we should allow people to poison the air in a public place in the name of freedom.

Allow people to poison the air? Tina makes it sound as though smokers are an inferior class of people whose sole purpose is to maliciously attack the innocent.  At no time does she indicate any compassion or concern about the smokers themselves. In fact:

People should be able to decide whether to smoke so long as they are not inflicting their choice on others.

So, I get the impression that Tina doesn’t care if smokers “poison” themselves, as long as the state can continue to collect the regressive taxes on the sale of cigarettes.

So, get rid of Tina!

The good guy of District 30A is Jake Dettinger. He is a business owner and he tells us:

I oppose the smoking ban on principle. I would be in favor of repealing the ban altogether. I generally do not like exemptions in law because it gives politicians too much power but I am willing to listen and discuss.

and also:

it is a property rights issue.  That should be the focus.
The reality is if the ban was repealed the overwhelming majority of establishments would likely maintain no-smoking status.

Jake also states on his website:

I will first use the principles of personal liberty and the power of the free market to guide my decisions first. I believe in putting people– not government– in charge of the property and money.

We have to give Jake a little extra credit, also, for supporting the repealing of the smoking ban in an area that is covered by local smoking ban. Of course, when the ban is repealed, then it would be up to Olmsted County to repeal their comprehensive ban to “create a level playing field”. Yes, it goes both ways!