Posted on 03/03/2006 2:11:31 AM PST by SheLion
ST. PAUL — Several Iron Range lawmakers have snuffed out any talk of a possible statewide smoking ban. They believe it’s a local control issue.
St. Louis County commissioners earlier this week deferred action on a possible countywide smoking ban and passed a resolution urging the Legislature deal with the issue
Currently the smoking ban bill is still “alive” in the Senate, but was put to rest in the House last year, and supporters of the legislation in the House will have to resurrect the measure again.
Rep. Tom Rukavinia, DFL-Virginia, who described himself as a “libertarian” on this issue, was adamantly against such a ban. He said that he has “not supported smoking bans, and did not support the cigarette tax,” which was passed as a revenue source by the Legislature last year and labeled a so-called fee on cigarette wholesalers, which was then passed on to smokers, by Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
Rukavina also said that there are “more important things to worry about, such as education, health care, nursing homes, and the growing meth problem.”
Several Minnesota counties and cities have enacted smoking-related bans. Some of the counties include: Beltrami, Hennepin, Olmsted, and Ramsey. Some of the cities that have implemented smoking bans include: St. Paul, Minneapolis, Bloomington, Golden Valley, Cloquet, Duluth, Moorhead, and Moose Lake. The bans in some of counties and cities differ to some extent, but most have provisions for smoke-free restaurants and bars, and some even have restrictions on outdoor smoking.
“Let local people make the decision,” said Rep. Loren Solberg, DFL-Grand Rapids.
Sen. David Tomassoni, DFL-Chisholm, was firm in not supporting a statewide ban. He also concurred with Solberg that “local government units have to decide.”
Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said that he won’t support any state smoking ban. “There is no reason for the state to step in,” he said. In addition, Bakk said laws are already on the books for businesses and employers to implement smoking regulations.
Rep. Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm, said that it is likely the Legislature will take up the issue next year. “People have the option” of choosing which bars and restaurants to frequent. In addition, he said “many businesses are handling the issue, and doing it on their own,” by making their establishments smoke-free or a smoking environment that makes use of ventilation systems. This way he said, concerns are being addressed.”
Rukavinia also said that the “technology is available for ventilation systems to be used.”
Legalized prohabition Ping
How long before we have prohibition of alcohol again?
Even when they get close to a positive vote for property rights, it seems they can't help themselves on retaining an option while misquoting each other.
Heh!
LOL
ha ha ha
Does Sen. Bakk mean to say that the Minnesota legislature has passed laws allowing businesses to permit legal activites on their own premises? If so that, to me, is an example that these people have nothing productive to do.
Each bar and restaurant owner should be the one to decide.
Gosh, now I am confused!
Audrey sent this in email and I took it to mean that this was a GOOD thing.
She especially loves the last sentence......
Rukavinia also said that the “technology is available for ventilation systems to be used.”
That is what we have been screaming for months. Leave this up to the business owner and his patrons and NOT the government!!!
I was commenting on the fact that the legislature thinks they had to pass laws to allow business owners to implement rules and regulations on their own damn property. These people think they're little demigods who have to lead us every step of the way, when the best solution is to send them all home for 48 weeks a year.
Look, we all know that we shouldn't steal and we make laws against it through our elected officials. To me and most ordinary people theft is theft, no matter how it's accomplished.
But the state and national legislatures, in an effort to both aggrandize themselves and keep themselves away from the one thing they hate (the people), come up with three hundred page laws decreeing that one musn't steal this way and another three hundred pages decreeing one shouldn't steal another way.
Theft is theft, period.
The worst part about this entire process is that the so-called legislators don't write these laws, their bloated staffs do and in a majority of cases, they don't even read them.
All this in a fruitless effort to show their constituents that they are "doing something" about ephemeral problems that their previous efforts usually created or as I prefer to say trumped up.
Local, state and federal offices are occupied by about 85% poseurs and phonies who for the most part couldn't hold down a regular job. John Baldacci being the classic case of the species.
/early morning rant
;O)
During WWI, 16 states had passed smoking bans. The troops came home and ignored the bans. A group of anti-smoking zealots in Indiana were charged with Treason for attempting to interfere with vets who were lighting up. Anti-smoking prohibitionists hit the wall with the rest of their movement when alcohol prohibition became decidedly "uncool" during the Depression. Everyone lit up to relieve the stresses of WWII.
The current crop of anti-tobacco activists will go the same way when the economy turns South or a new crisis looms. Today they're the Taliban, but after a few years of selfrighteous "progressivism", they'll go the same way as their brothers in Afghanistan did.
I've got anovel idea........let the BUSINESS OWNERS decide.
Sheesh - what ails these people?????????
If MN had any courage they would ban cigarette sales in the state.
Sertich is a big name in hockey in MN
Thanks for the ping!
No state can "ban" cigarettes because of the Tobacco Settlement ends. Which is in 2005.
Sorry!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.