Posted on Thu, Jan. 12, 2006
St. Paul OKs smoking ban With the political winds shifting after the ouster of St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly, the City Council voted 4-3 Wednesday to ban smoking in the city's bars and restaurants. The new mayor, Chris Coleman, immediately signed it into law. Kelly had twice vetoed the measure. The actions conclude more than a year of efforts by Council Member Dave Thune to end smoking in public workplaces. "” Jason Hoppin
The new rules Beginning March 31, smoking will be banned in St. Paul bars, restaurants, pool halls, bingo parlors and bowling centers. Smoking will be allowed on outdoor patios. Smokers who refuse to leave can be arrested for trespassing. Owners who don't comply with the ban risk losing their liquor license.
the vote For: Jay Benanav, Lee Helgen, Kathy Lantry and Dave Thune Against: Dan Bostrom, Pat Harris and Debbie Montgomery
what's NEXT The city is considering establishing a fund to help small businesses make the transition from smoking to nonsmoking. Coleman said he will join Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak in lobbying for a statewide ban. Opponents of the St. Paul law may seek a citywide referendum that would ask voters to support a partial, rather than total, smoking ban.
viewpoints
"It is very important to recognize Council Member Dave Thune and his peers on the City Council for their leadership. "¦ Their efforts "¦ have made the difference in passing this landmark ordinance that will protect the health of St. Paul workers and patrons for years to come." "” Mayor Chris Coleman
"I think adults are capable of making decisions on whether or not to work in or patronize places that allow smoking." "” Council Member Dan Bostrom, who voted against the ordinance
I guess pretty soon you won't be able to smoke in MN. Minneapolis already passed a ban last year.
The two main arguments I have heard for this are that the employees shouldn't have to work in a place filled with smoke. The second is that smokers "usually" have more medical problems so everyone has to pay higher insurance cost to cover them.
I say this is a bunch of crap. Every job has risks associated with it and you take on those risks excepting that job. If you don't want to work in smoke, don't work in a bar.
As for the increase healt cost associate with smokers, I guess I don't get this. What about my increased vehical insurance becaue of all the H2 or Cadillacs dirving around or children for that matter. Are they going limit the number of children a person can have next.
I don't smoke, but I don't like the idea of the government telling me I can't in a certain places especially if the owner of the establishment wants to allow me to.
what do you think aout this issue and are there similar bans in your cities?
I agree with your position , and I'm a former smoker .
If I were one of those business owners I would be livid with fury . Kentucky and Indiana , both tobacco states , rank #1 and #2 in per capita smoking , and we have coexisted in relative harmony by simply excercising common courtesy . 40% of Kentuckians smoke , and Indiana was 30% last I looked . Sad , I know , but a fact none the less .
Mind , I don't condone smoking as a practice anymore , but I do understand that it's that individual's right to be dumb if they want to , and the business owner's right to run their place in a profitable manner . If something offends me where I am at the moment I just move on to somewhere that the offensive practice won't be encountered . That's called compromise , and if more folks practised it we wouldn't have some of the chicken**** laws that we do .
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
I have some mixed feelings on this, I've never smoked and never will, stupid habit if you ask me. I hate the smell, hate being in a bar or restaraunt that allows it, however it should be left up to the owner. That said, there is merit to the employee aspect. If your job is waitress or bartender, you may not have the realistic ability to go elsewhere so are forced to suck in that crap. Additionally the smoke is generally, at a bar anyway, blown in towards the bartender, not out away from the bar.
This one, in my mind, is right on the line for individual liberty and freedom vs. well being of the others around you and infringing on their rights.
I always like the idea of having smoking and non-smoking sections.Â* It seemed like everybody got what they wanted with that setup.
It used to be that way here , and that too was a compromise to appease the antismokers . The next thing you know all of the businesses that allow smoking had to install high efficiency ventilation scrubbers and/or separate rooms with said scrubbers for the smokers to avoid offending the non-smokers . The businesses hated it at first , and who could blame them considering the expense , but in the end both sides were able to coexist peacefully again and the businesses actually got a rise in foot traffic since the smoke didn't bother anyone anymore . They also saw a rise in their profit margins that more than compensated for the expense in the long run . However , since some militant uncompromising antismokers , who for the most part don't even live here , got a smoking ban instated recently their investment just went down the crapper . The ban is a watered down compromise and full of exemptions , but I'm sure those jackasses will get the ban tightened to suit them soon . [:@]
Common courtesy , folks , that's all it takes .
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
Wasn't all the money the states got in the settlement (shakedown of) with EVIL Big Tobacco supposed to pay for the increased health care caused by smoking? But now that the money has been spent on politicians pet projects we have to find other ways of dealing with smoking. So they ban it. Seems to me this is not in accordance with the agreement the states.
What I would like to see is the tobacco companies telling the State of Minnesota, screw you, we are not gonna sell our product in your socialist utopia. We will however supply cigarrettesto the Sovereign
Nations of Indian Tribes, for sale at their casinos and smokeshops. It's just more hassle than it's worth to deal withthe politicians and the constant attacks on our products.
The money grubbing politicos would be crying then because the golden goose had been slaughtered.
ORIGINAL:
What I would like to see is the tobacco companies telling the State of Minnesota, screw you, we are not gonna sell our product in your socialist utopia. We will however supply cigarrettesto the Sovereign
Nations of Indian Tribes, for sale at their casinos and smokeshops. It's just more hassle than it's worth to deal withthe politicians and the constant attacks on our products.
The money grubbing politicos would be crying then because the golden goose had been slaughtered.
You got that right about the golden goose! I believe that the new 2005 tax on tabaccoo products recently got overturned. They tried to increase the tax by $.75 per pack to total $1.23 per pack just for MN tax. I live in WI on the boarder and work in MN. A few months ago I needed a tin of copenhagen and bought it in MN. I paid $6.70 for ONE tin. In WI the most I have ever paid is $5.05. I would think that the state would want to keep as many people smoking as possible being that they made $182 million in tax from it in 2005. With all the bans and increases in prices, people will be forced to quite or go to neigboring states....I have seen several people drive to WI and buy at least 8 cartons of cigs at a time. I guess it is worth it to save $60.
If you're a smoker, get ready. This is where we're headed all across the nation. Some of it is due to the usual needless political correctness but much of it is due to more and more people getting more and more pissed off that they should have to inhale others' second-hand smoke.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
The part that really bugged me was our pubbie governor didn't have the cajones to call the tax increase what it was, a tax increase. Instead he went with the term fee. Whatta wuss !
The split areas don't work all that well, they do for a decent sized restaraunt, but not forgoing to a bar for a few drinks, best they do around here is a "square" bar where one/two sides are non-smoking, it helps, but still does nothing for employees.
Locally some restaraunt/bars have gone smoke free on Friday and Saturday nights up til around 9, they have done this for families, then after 9 most of the "kids" should be gone. Business skyrocketed for them.
Like I said, mixed feelings because I see both sides, what I rarely see from both sides, is the acknowledgement that "right" to smoke of the smokerscollides with the "right" to breath of the non-smokers. Both sides get pig headed, yet both have valid points.
Anyway, I see it going like this:
- movement will continue and smoking will never be outlawed, but will be socially "abandoned", won't be able to smoke in any closed building in public.
- Some outdoor public places are and will ban it as well.
Once this is done, the smoking rate of teenagers will fall to almost non-existance.
next up: booze!
You laugh, prohibition failed because its very hard to take something many people use and make it illegal. However, it can be made to be socially unacceptable.
"Sin" taxes, on tobacco products and booze are becoming a very popular way to raise state revenues.
Booze companies are trying to fight it off early with ads promoting responsible drinking. I predict 25 years from now you would be hard up to find a public bar that is not a restaraunt.
St. Paul, MN OK's smoking ban
